Is it morally wrong to not support the troops?

Post Reply New Topic

Or you noticed that you side is completely unarmed?
I defend freedom with the bill of rights and self determination.
bizarre heh?
every war we have had has eroded not bolstered those rights.
(even the "good" ones)
and 51% of discretionary spending goes to the military 20% of total budget.
if taxation is slavery , I doubt that it is, we are enslaved by our military.
it is the biggest socialist boondoggle going.
The hawks in this country are like scared old ladies who take a desert eagle -that can't possibly
fire- to check the mail.

I'm actually in complete agreement with JakobVirgil here. Violence throghout history has ONLY lead to more despotism, segregation, distrust, hatred, the erroding and gradual prohibition of liberty, the gradual removal of personal freedoms, and guess what else? MORE violence. The fact that we have LESS rights now due to the propagation of acts of violence and coersion is proof positive that violence does NOTHING to bring humanity together, in fact it does the complete opposite and tears it apart. When people realise and embrace the symbiotic connections between themselves, each other and nature, we see ourselves as one. Violence is the OPPOSITE of that act. As Bill Hicks said:

"It's only a choice, between fear, and love."

"Relevant sacrifice?"



False.

Veteran's aren't any more likely to get hired by civilian employers than non-veterans, especially if they do not have skills relevant to the jobs they are applying for. Most civilians employers don't care about military service. In fact, military service has recently been proving to be a hindrance to many because some employers think all former service members have PTSD. And, last time I checked the stats, the unemployment rates among military veterans was just as bad as they are for non-veterans.



That's not why military veterans are preferred over non-veterans for law enforcement positions. It's because veterans have been shown to be able to adapt more easily to the law enforcement lifestyle and mindset. It has nothing to do with being a super "tough guy."

And I get five extra points on my civil service exam. Ten points if I have a service-connected disability. That's about it. It's not that great of an advantage.



Really? What are the names and addresses of these agencies?



So can civilian employers, and I've personally found the military to be a lot less discriminatory than the private sector.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that military personnel have all of these awesome advantages in the civilian job market. We really don't.



I'm not sure I follow your logic. Just because someone voluntarily makes a sacrifice, it's less of a sacrifice?

As for the perks and benefits, it's very simple:

If you want people to VOLUNTARILY do a dirty dangerous job, one where they will be, at the very least, grossly inconvenienced, deprived of many of the personal freedoms civilians take for granted, and living under government control, you had better make it worth their wild. It's about attracting an all-volunteer force, not about whether society "owes" us anything. In the past several years, with retention rates being stellar on account of the lousy economy, the government has increasingly been slashing our benefits and the secretary of defense has even been talking about cutting our pay.

Last edited by XFilesGeek on 08 Jun 2011, 8:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

Can you demonstrate this empirically, or are you just guessing? Can you prove that the outcome of history would have been "better" if we had not engaged in the wars we engaged in? Can you at least prove that the world would have been in "better" shape than what it currently is if we had not gone to war? And can you please define exactly what you mean by "better?"

So far, I see you making a series of claims about how history WOULD'VE happened had we not done certain things, but you've supplied me with no reason to believe you, or trust that your insight into what "would've happened" is the least bit accurate.



What "rights" are we currently lacking on account of war? What rights would we currently now have if wars hadn't been fought?



This assumes two things:

1. That violence is inherently immoral (which I do not agree with).

2. That a lack of human "togetherness" is what causes war (which I also do not agree with).

IMHO, first, I don't see "violence" as anything other than a tool to be used. How, when, and why we use it will always be a point of contention, but ultimately, the universe doesn't really give a #@$%. Only humans care about the question of if and when violence is "appropriate," and that will always boil down to subjective, personal opinion. Secondly, also strictly IMHO, wars will always be fought as long as resources are limited. Limited resources are what causes most of our mash-ups, and, until we invent a Star Trek-style replicator that can create food and water our of thin air, we're going to keep throwing punches. Starving people can't eat "love." Also, it's been suggested by some that "peace," in light of our limited resources, is best maintained by keeping our borders intact. Good fences make for good neighbors.

Lastly, in regards to the personal character of myself and my fellow service members, we're a motley crew of highly complex human beings with our own POVs, life experiences, and opinions. I joined for my own reasons and, when I'm not out raping and pillaging at the behest of the U.S. government, I'm volunteering for Meals on Wheels, walking dogs at the local shelter, ect. I find it somewhat ironic that people who are so hot and bothered about "peace" would seek to sway me to your side by screaming, yelling, and calling me a big poopy-head because I take a different view of socio-political realities. Sounds like a good way to make people angry and incite violent reactions, doncha think?

Take care.

I got a 3 letter acronym for you: T.S.A.



My point is NOT that violence has been used to further the greedy and desperate agendas of corporate and governmental powers, my point is that violence does not bring humanity together.



YOU used the word "better". Not me.



Its not my job to spoonfeed you. I'm not your teacher. I'm not responsible for convincing you personally of anything. You have to make your own decisions on what you choose to take on board and what you don't.

With this in mind, and with your rationalle, are you saying that a relationship characterised by domestic violence is a more stable, physically, emotionally and spiritually healthy and prosperous relationship than a relationship that is characterised by patience, good communication, tolerance and love? I don't think so. I don't have to prove that, its common sense. Logic. Its self evident.



Read the "patriot act" then get back to me.



Then I'm sorry that you feel that violence is the answer. Just try and use violence to acquire respect and love and see how far you get. And keep in mind that compliance out of fear is not akin to respect and love.



Then you clearly misunderstand Bill Hicks. Violence is not the sole symptom of the lack of the realisation of symbiosis, Violence is a main inhibitor of the realisation of symbiosis.



And considering that this is by your own admission merely your opinion, it is not based upon fact, but instead based upon perception.

Violence may in certain ways be a tool. But in that case it is a bad one and one that should have gone back in the toolbox CENTURIES ago.



It is an empirical fact that violence separates and love unites. Sorry.



If yopu look into the proposal of a Resource-Based Economy, then you will see that resources have NEVER been scarce overall. If you have a scarcity of food in your house and an inability to buy much more, then that doesn't mean that the planet is scarce on food.



You don't need a "replicator" to produce an abundance of the necessities of life for the entire population. Within a monetary system such restrictions must be put in place in order to maintain the structure of wealth.



And if you listen to my most recent podcast, you will hear my guest Douglas Mallette talking about his new project to create a food production company that utilises automated verticle hydroponic farming technology to provide abundant food for starving countries. All done not out of the want for profit. In fact he is not-for-profit. All done out of love. THAT is how love can feed you.



If you're so altruistic, then just get the hell out of the military. Simple.

The Travel Security Agency?



And I say again, so what?



You made a serious of claims and I asked you to support them. It's not my job to do your homework for you. If you can't support your own claims, don't be surprised when you get called on it on a public message board.



Your claim that violence is inherently morally "wrong" most certainly does have to be justified. And it does not follow that not seeing violence as inherently "wrong" means that all human relationships must be "characterized by violence" by default.

"Violence" does not have the same function in all human relationships, nor is the application of violence the same across the board. Punching a guy for trying to rape a woman does not mean I find it acceptable to punch my mother for allowing the beef stew to congeal on the stove. If I lack "togetherness" with the rapist who I assault, that's just fine by me. There are many people/countries/cultures that I have absolutely no desire to be "together" with. In fact, I find certain people/countries/cultures downright repugnant.



Why don't you state specifically what you're referring to, and then demonstrate that this was directly "caused" by war as opposed to a few nuts using war to justify the PA's existence.



Not thinking violence is inherently wrong doesn't equate to thinking "violence is the answer." That's akin to thinking that because I'm pro-choice I advocate abortion in all cases, no matter what. Or that because I like oranges, I eat nothing but oranges and demand others do the same.



Why should I care what Bill Hicks thinks? Is he an authority on ultimate reality and the nature of morality?



Which is exactly what your contention that violence is inherently wrong boils down to.



Care to demonstrate that......empirically? Excessive love for one's own race separates plenty of people. "Love" causes all kinds of silly problems. Human emotions typically do.

What I find inherently harmful is thinking in extremes.



I didn't say "food," I said RESOURCES.



I'm in the military precisely because I'm altruistic.

That's the one. If you can't see how much of a constitutional violation, and how much of a violation of personal privacy and dignity the TSA's powers are then you really need to get your eyes checked.



If you don't care about humanity's survival by moving beyond and growing out of the immature and barbaristic mentality of ritualistic dick-waving and killing people in order to solve problems, then that's your look out. Just don't think you can hold me accountable.



My statement still stands. If you can't be bothered to research the validity of my points for YOURSELF, and realise the facts behind my statements for YOURSELF, then why am I responsible for doing your thinking for you? Like I said I don't need to back up the fact that violence separates people. its self evident.



I'm sorry, can you actually answer the question? Evasive pontification is very telling you know.

So you're telling me that violence is morally right and just, regardless of the context, use or cause? *rolls on the floor laughing*

What planet do you live on?



Again, you have evaded answering the question.



This only applies to a system that doesn't address the root causes of rape, assault and neglegence. Just a hint, its our current system.



Yet again, you're being evasive and not addressing my points. And like I have already said twice now it's not my job to do your thinking for you.



I'm sorry for not being psychic and in turn structuring my responses by what you leave out of your posts here and go instead by what's in your head.



I'm not asking for you to care about Bill Hicks. Just like you wouldn't ask me to care about anyone you may feel the need to quote. And out of curiosity, what, or should I say WHO exactly do YOU consider to be an "authority on ultimate reality and the nature of morality"?



Then you are obviously igno9rant of the VAST negativities that violence generates.



Like I have said 3 times now, it is not my job to do your thinking for you. Howabout you do your own research for once? Have you researched the cultures that engage and embrace the non-agression principle? The Amish, the Mennonites, the Hudderites etc., etc., etc. Cultures who live their lives PEACEFULLY?



How have I demonstrated extremist thinking?



And what "RESOURCES" exactly are you referring to?



I'm sorry but I find it hard to believe that an institution that functions to reduce men to trained and state promoted serial killers holds any semblence of altruism whatsoever. I'm sure you're an altruistic person. But I don't believe for a SECOND that the military has ANY interest in the safety of human lives when it is structured with the practice of creating skills to END human lives.

Just name the u.s. military actions that have increased liberty for Americans.
Its as simple as that.
The pro-military argument is smoke and mirrors and emotional rhetoric.
Which war protected my freedom of speech?
which invasion protected my freedom of religion?
which coup protected my right to bear arms?
please all your side has flag waving and lies.

< bolded my grammar corrections some one already quoted.>

Last edited by JakobVirgil on 08 Jun 2011, 12:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Precisely.

The doings of the U.S. military in WW2 kept me from becoming a cake of soap in some Nazi's bathtub.

ruveyn

That's the propaganda that is shelled out by the mainstream. The fact that BOTH sides of the first and second world war were funded by the US tells me that Hitler wasn't as much of an enemy to the US as we're told. I mean come on, it was from Hitler where the US government learnt the fantastic trick known as the false-flag terror attack.

War is inevitable, so soldiery is a necessary occupation. I certainly wouldn't support enemy troops though.

Inevitable in a monetary system, yes.

where you there?

Someone who served via draft or certainly incurred a hardship such as loss of physical/mental/emotional functionality due to a service-related incident compared to someone who just put in 4 or more years sitting behind a desk.



Maybe discontinued, but the USMC/government had the "Green to Gold" program to encourage police agencies to hire Marines. A monetary incentive was offered for hiring them. Call it what you want, it boiled down to a bribe.

You are correct that an employer can pick who they choose, but in many jobs (law enforcement being one of them), the "minimum standards" are set rather low and someone with no relevant experience or training can be considered for an entry-level job. I've personally seen many people (military or not) go for jobs claiming to require certification and/or experience but the agency hired non-experienced/qualified applicants because of who they knew, or they just liked them. Hiring rules are often broken and seem to exist more as a justification to turn away people they don't want to hire than any other purpose. Just my jaded experience perhaps.



I don't buy that...of course around my area, there are huge amounts of pro-veteran pride in the public psyche and if you are not a minority, you won't be considered for a job unless someone on the inside is pulling for your or you're a military veteran. I suspect the minorities make it in solely because of the fear that they'd claim discrimination for not being hired, but most minorities hired are well below the scoring of most while male applicants...veteran or not.



Perhaps just my jaded viewpoint, but every agency I've seen in the VA, NC, TN area really look fondly upon veteran applicants compared to others...perhaps because many of them served themselves.



True, but there is N-O-B-O-D-Y in the private sector who will take a person with nothing more than minimal demonstrated aptitude and an interest in a job field and spend millions to train them in the latest technology and put them to work. If the military won't take you, your only other option is to spend on expensive schooling which is anywhere from 3-5 years behind the trend in many fields, and even then, the experienced veteran will be valued over the graduate fresh out of school. The veteran's skills are that much more superior to a prospective employer looking for skilled labor.



I know it's not true for all, but a whole lot of veterans I know who came out of the military with a marketable skill have little problem transitioning into a good job as compared to the civilian who never served. Maybe this is a matter of thinking the grass is greener on the other side of the fence, but from where I sit, I wish I had the chance to serve, gain top-end job skills, and have that "respect" that seems to naturally flow towards those who were allowed to serve. Maybe you don't understand how empty and disadvantaged I feel things are because I can never offer an employer what a military veteran can.



Most all the benefits veterans have today arise from a time when we had a draft and we conscripted the number needed to meed manpower needs according to how much voluntary recruitment fell short. When we went to an all-volunteer military, we improved many things including pay and benefits to attract people, and these "perks" were disclosed up front. Granted, the government has frequently failed to honor many promises made, but talk to someone who's an expert in veteran programs, and you'll find there are a lot of things out there...even grants to help a veteran start a business. Not all Veteran Reps at your employment office know of these programs, but they are out there.

I see this in terms of receiving a commendation for valor. A Navy SEAL might be valiant, but his life revolves around a choice to do extreme things on a daily basis. In contrast, someone who joins up to be a cook but is put in a situation to do something incredible would more easily receive a commendation for valor. Why? It is because the cook was never asked nor volunteered for the "hard" job, but when the time came, he went well above and beyond what was expected of him to get a job done. The Navy SEAL volunteers for the "hard" job (out of pride?), and hence the level he must rise to in order to distinguish any given act as "valiant" is all that much higher.

Military service is no longer a matter of compulsion...when many of the perks and attitudes we have towards those who serve were forged. Today, even in a time of war, not one man or woman goes overseas against their will. They knew the risk/certainty of deployment and chose to join. Certainly every benefit and promises made to induce them to serve must be honored, but the hidden perks? Some of them I feel are unjust because ultimately, there is no right to serve your country, and those who are denied the opportunity have the awkward burden of having to fund something they are not allowed to earn themselves.

It's one thing if I choose to never serve. It's another thing if I am denied the opportunity to serve. I didn't serve because I didn't want to. I didn't serve because I was not allowed to.

That's why I have mixed feelings about "supporting the troops." It's hard to watch the respect and adoration society bestows upon people and it's hard to compete against those people knowing you are flat out denied the chance to do what they have done and earn such respect for yourself.

Does that make sense or am I just being bitter? Maybe both?

Yes, I rue the day my fundamental human right to walk through airport security with my shoes on was viciously ripped away from me by Men in Black.



I do care, I just don't happen to think your "togetherness" philosophy has anything to do with "humanity's survival," or that mine necessitates killing people.



It's not my job to support your assertions for you. If you make a claim, the onus is on you to provide the evidence. I'm not going to prove your points for you, or support your arguments, It's up to you to prove yourself right before I prove you wrong. That's basic logic.

If you continue to refuse to offer up anything in the way of support for your claims, that's dandy, but I'm going to interpret it that you don't actually have anything to support yourself with, which is pretty much what I originally suspected.



No it isn't. It depends entirely on your personal interpretation on what constitutes "separation" and "togetherness," and on your personal preferences on what kinds of "separation" and "togetherness" you're willing to accept.

I can think of several examples of "violence" that unites and "love" that separates.



That's not what I said. I said I don't think violence is inherently "wrong," which is not the same thing as saying violence is inherently "right."



No, a "violent marriage" is not a "functional" one.



You're not required to be a psychic; however, you would do well not to make assumptions where they aren't warranted.



No one.



No, I just interpret the outcomes of "violence" differently than you do.



And like I have said three times now, it's not my job to support your arguments for you. As for the Amish et. al., yes, I'm aware of them, and I have no desire to emulate their culture.



In addition to food, we have oil, and drinkable water, and arable land....the list goes on. And before you start expounding on how any and all problems obtaining those resources are caused by the "monetary system," I agree, but that's what we're currently stuck with and good luck trying to convince people to work for "love."



Which is where our interpretation of what the military is and does diverges, and I'm perfectly content to let you have your view, but, likewise, you have yet to offer me a reason to alter mine.

Last edited by XFilesGeek on 10 Jun 2011, 12:30 am, edited 4 times in total.