Do you support the troops?

[kochman]

Ok, communisto, duly noted.
I really appreciate that you offer nothing to support any of your disdain... but were sure to post your disdain.

You uber-lefties are classic.

 

[MobBoss]

As this post has apparently gotten some laudatory comments, let me pick it apart.

Volunteer soldiers, which are what compose modern armies

Actually, more than a few modern armies, even first world ones, have compulsory service as a requirement.

are mostly people who join the military and embark for missions in foreign continents where they are required to kill people for a consistent pack of money.

This is incorrect at least in two ways. Most soldiers are simply not required to kill people. It is an possible occupational reality - but a requirement? Thats just an utter falsehood.

Also, the pack of money thing. That may be true for some soldiers, absolutely, but not for all. Maybe not even a majority. Soldiers join for a very wide variety of reasons, including money sure, but also for education benefits, skill training, nationalism, and some just to challenge themselves.

If they are lucky, they won't have to kill or won't have to kill much, but this doesn't make a difference. They are at all effects mercenaries. The remaining part is composed by fanatics who really believe they are serving their country when they go kill people in foreign continents without knowing why and -worse- without questioning why.

These comments show me that you are fairly clueless as to things military. Luck has a very minimal impact on whether some soldier kills someone or not. In fact, the number of soldiers that actually even fire their weapon at an enemy is quite small. If you consider that the overwelming number of soldiers, even in Iraq and Afghanistan, are CS or CSS troops and not combat troops, its becomes readily apparent to anyone with rudimentary math skills that the vast majority of soldiers never get to even point their weapon at the 'enemy'. That doesnt mean they arent in harms way - many CS and CSS soldiers still get killed by IEDs, mortars and sometimes snipers, but those soldiers arent the ones out on patrol, looking for bad dudes. And even among combat troops, how many of those do you think actually 'kill' an enemy? Fewer still.

Even by using elementary math skills its evident that you are incredibly wrong on your perceptions about soldiers 'killing' the enemy.

You are also fairly clueless as to the difference in what a mercenary is and a soldier. Soldiers swear oaths, mercenaries dont. Mercs can walk away from a job if they dont like it, soldiers cant. While some of the tactics/techniques soldiers and mercs may employ are indeed similar, lets not make the error in assuming that the two are the same. They arent.

I also find it telling that you describe someone who actually desires to serve their country as a 'fanatic'. It would appear that words like duty and loyalty dont appear in your lexicon of life. Just because you wouldnt make the choice to actually serve your nation dont assume that someone who does is a fanatic just because the idea of doing that is so foreign to you.

But since WW2 none of our armies have been defending our countries, our armies are always abroad to defend someone else, regardless if it's been asked or not, but our politicians always claim they are defending our homeland, they are protecting us -in foreign continents.

Hmm. Guess you missed the World trade center bombing? 9/11? Those ring a bell? What about our embassys being bombed and our countrymen being murdered in places around the world? Not important? I guess you think we should simply build a 30 ft wall around the entire USA and just be isolationist, amiright? Do you suggest we pull out of organizations like the UN or NATO because it could mean we need to liberate Kuwait from Iraq? Or stop genocide in Kosovo? Not worth it to you to do that?

Do I support people who kill for a living or that fanatically follow any order and justify everything in the name of something that doesn't even really exist? No, I don't.

And as a professional soldier, I wouldnt want your support were you to offer it. No thanks. And I and several others have already pointed out the 'fanatically follow any order' comment for the lie it truly is, so I have no idea why you utter such a falsehood even again.

I have no idea why people would think this a great post. Its filled with a large number of utter falsehoods and blatent misrepresentations to the point where its nothing more than the type fanatical propaganda it claims soldiers follow. It was very easy to carve it up and show it to be quite lacking in actual fact or even a basis in todays reality. If people want to subscribe to that level of Goebbels-esqe propaganda fine, go ahead...just remember to come up for air every once in awhile.

 

[Communisto]

Ok, communisto, duly noted.
I really appreciate that you offer nothing to support any of your disdain... but were sure to post your disdain.

You uber-lefties are classic.

Im not even a leftist.

What do you mean offer nothing? That post was hilariously misinformed and the subsequent one about you being an "addict of ww2 history" just further shovels the grave of credibility. Did you learn all your "ww2 history" from the back of Call of Duty game cases?

 

[kochman]

As this post has apparently gotten some laudatory comments, let me pick it apart.



Actually, more than a few modern armies, even first world ones, have compulsory service as a requirement.



This is incorrect at least in two ways. Most soldiers are simply not required to kill people. It is an possible occupational reality - but a requirement? Thats just an utter falsehood.

Also, the pack of money thing. That may be true for some soldiers, absolutely, but not for all. Maybe not even a majority. Soldiers join for a very wide variety of reasons, including money sure, but also for education benefits, skill training, nationalism, and some just to challenge themselves.



These comments show me that you are fairly clueless as to things military. Luck has a very minimal impact on whether some soldier kills someone or not. In fact, the number of soldiers that actually even fire their weapon at an enemy is quite small. If you consider that the overwelming number of soldiers, even in Iraq and Afghanistan, are CS or CSS troops and not combat troops, its becomes readily apparent to anyone with rudimentary math skills that the vast majority of soldiers never get to even point their weapon at the 'enemy'. That doesnt mean they arent in harms way - many CS and CSS soldiers still get killed by IEDs, mortars and sometimes snipers, but those soldiers arent the ones out on patrol, looking for bad dudes. And even among combat troops, how many of those do you think actually 'kill' an enemy? Fewer still.

Even by using elementary math skills its evident that you are incredibly wrong on your perceptions about soldiers 'killing' the enemy.

You are also fairly clueless as to the difference in what a mercenary is and a soldier. Soldiers swear oaths, mercenaries dont. Mercs can walk away from a job if they dont like it, soldiers cant. While some of the tactics/techniques soldiers and mercs may employ are indeed similar, lets not make the error in assuming that the two are the same. They arent.

I also find it telling that you describe someone who actually desires to serve their country as a 'fanatic'. It would appear that words like duty and loyalty dont appear in your lexicon of life. Just because you wouldnt make the choice to actually serve your nation dont assume that someone who does is a fanatic just because the idea of doing that is so foreign to you.



Hmm. Guess you missed the World trade center bombing? 9/11? Those ring a bell? What about our embassys being bombed and our countrymen being murdered in places around the world? Not important? I guess you think we should simply build a 30 ft wall around the entire USA and just be isolationist, amiright?



And as a professional soldier, I wouldnt want your support were you to offer it. No thanks.

I have no idea why people would think this a great post. Its filled with a large number of utter falsehoods and blatent misrepresentations to the point where its nothing more than the type fanatical propaganda it claims of soldiers. It was very easy to carve it up and show it to be quite lacking in actual fact or even a basis in todays reality. If people want to subscribe to that level of Goebbels-esqe propaganda fine, go ahead...just remember to come up for air every once in awhile.

Well said MobBoss!

 

[kochman]

Im not even a leftist.

What do you mean offer nothing? That post was hilariously misinformed and the subsequent one about you being an "addict of ww2 history" just further shovels the grave of credibility. Did you learn all your "ww2 history" from the back of Call of Duty game cases?

Are you going to continue to offer nothing intelligent?
Not that I feel the need, but how could I "prove" to you that I know about WW2? What is your test?
Good heavens.

Moderator Action: This is becoming habit, kochman. Quit trolling and flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[JollyRoger]

Not that I feel the need, but how could I "prove" to you that I know about WW2?

Offer something intelligent on the subject.

 

[Communisto]

Are you going to continue to offer nothing intelligent?
Not that I feel the need, but how could I "prove" to you that I know about WW2? What is your test?
Good heavens.

JollyRoger beat me to it, but yeah. As it stands youre just doing a very good job of inferring that you dont know anything beyond a 5th grade social studies mention of the war from an antiquated pov. It doesnt really make me want to take anything else you say about military matters very seriously.
Moderator Action: More personal attacks.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[galdre]

I have mixed feelings about supporting the troops. I served in the army myself, but was frankly too naive to know what the military is really about and how it is used. I would never serve now, as I feel it would be supporting the immoral actions of our government. Those who serve have responsibility in how they allow themselves to be used. Luckily for myself I didn't serve during the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq

Most people join because they don't have many options open - high unemployment and poverty work to the favor of the government to keep recruits coming in. They are usually too young and naive to realize they're being lied to and used.

 

[kochman]

I have mixed feelings about supporting the troops. I served in the army myself, but was frankly too naive to know what the military is really about and how it is used. I would never serve now, as I feel it would be supporting the immoral actions of our government. Those who serve have responsibility in how they allow themselves to be used. Luckily for myself I didn't serve during the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq

Most people join because they don't have many options open - high unemployment and poverty work to the favor of the government to keep recruits coming in. They are usually too young and naive to realize they're being lied to and used.

So, what about generals? There have been tons of brilliant men who are generals, who could've done anything they wanted in the world... not that all generals are brilliant!
Just saying, I have met some amazing people in the higher ranks (as well as the lower ranks). For some opportunity is the reason, but that is a pretty big generalization.

 

[Communisto]

Is this guy a soldier? ^

 

[galdre]

So, what about generals? There have been tons of brilliant men who are generals, who could've done anything they wanted in the world... not that all generals are brilliant!
Just saying, I have met some amazing people in the higher ranks (as well as the lower ranks). For some opportunity is the reason, but that is a pretty big generalization.

high officers are in no way representative of the majority of the military population

 

[kochman]

I understand that, but are they not capable of realizing they are being "lied to" and "manipulated"? Or are they a part of the problem?

 

[galdre]

I understand that, but are they not capable of realizing they are being "lied to" and "manipulated"? Or are they a part of the problem?

they're part of the problem - they're usually the ones doing the lying and manipulating

 

[Dachs]

they're part of the problem - they're usually the ones doing the lying and manipulating

Have you met any of these people?

 

[kochman]

they're part of the problem - they're usually the ones doing the lying and manipulating

Nonsense.
Absolute rubbish.
These are, in general, men/women who have a HUGE sense of honor and loyalty. You make them out to be sneaktheives in the night.

I can't understand how people allow themselves to seriously entertain such ideas, but, there are people out there protecting your right to say outlandish things like generals are lying manipulators.

 

[Abaddon]

I always support the brave men and women who fight for us.

I don't always support the actions their superiors decide they are going to undertake.

I can differentiate between the two

 

[galdre]

Have you met any of these people?

yes

Nonsense.
Absolute rubbish.
These are, in general, men/women who have a HUGE sense of honor and loyalty. You make them out to be sneaktheives in the night.

loyalty to who? And honor is all a matter of definition

I can't understand how people allow themselves to seriously entertain such ideas, but, there are people out there protecting your right to say outlandish things like generals are lying manipulators.

I was one of those people serving...

you really should read the history of military actions of the US - I'm not saying this is anything unique to the US, every nation is built on violence.

and yes, a surprising number people lie and manipulate. As Camus said, we don't have good people in politics because good people aren't attracted to power, the same goes for business and high military positions

 

[kochman]

I always support the brave men and women who fight for us.

I don't always support the actions their superiors decide they are going to undertake.

I can differentiate between the two

Well said!

I really don't have time for anyone who thinks otherwise... it's just so far from the center I could really care less.

 

[galdre]

"just following orders" is not an excuse. If someone tells you to do something that is wrong, it's your responsibility to not do it

while commanding officers do hold more responsibility, you can't say that those they command hold no responsibility at all

 

[illram]

I don't buy the whole "protecting my freedom thing." The idea that soldiers are in the modern world protecting my "freedom" by fighting foreign wars is antiquated and on the same level of meaningless propaganda as the "support the troops" phrase.