Support Our Troops?

[Takhisis]

If you have no understanding or empathy for the soldiers, it's a simple deducation that deaths and damages on either side are yet another statistic, as if they were playing Age of Empires.

 

[Borachio]

Link to video.

 

[caketastydelish]

Link to video.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

Link to video.

Edit: I didn't even go to this page before posting this, so I had no idea it was the third video in a row.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Ummmm, Hawaii is US soil... and Japan also took some islands in Alaska...
Furthermore, many of the islands in the Pacific had our bases on them, and some even were ours...

Fair enough.

Jimminy Christmas man, you've let the revisionists get to you? Say it ain't so, Dommy.
So, it was our fault?

I actually agree with what we did. That doesn't change the fact that there was some motivation to Japan's actions.

Had we sided with Japan, we would have been morally wrong, but Japan would not have attacked us.

Had we done absolutely nothing, we probably wouldn't have gotten attacked for awhile, but the German/Italian/Japanese empires would have expanded dramatically.

What was the right path? Exactly what we did. Stay out of a Eurasian war but support the free countries. When Japan attacked us, we were 100% justified in going to war.

So, what about the people that were in BEFORE 9/11 or Iraq?

I wish they hadn't done that.
Welcome to unrealityland, a place where mass mutiny occurs and communism works

Come on Dom, you know very well the entire military isn't going to say "no" when it comes to attacking a genocidal maniac who tried to assassinate a sitting US President and they believed at the time was creating and proliferating weapons of mass destruction that would likely be used against the USA...

That Iraq would have ever used WMDs against us is even more unreal...

They may have signed up for it. Many may even be eager for it. That does not excuse spending the soldier's lives cheaply or for no worthwhile objective.

The problem with the neocon movement in the US, as an example, sees soldiers as no more than pawns. They have no understanding or empathy for the soldiers, and so see nothing wrong with spending their lives as if they were pennies. Often for little to no gain to the national interest and safety.

 

[caketastydelish]

Link to video.

 

[Arwon]

I've never really bought into the outrage about 'getting our boys killed' - we signed up for it, we knew the risks - I remember how happy I was before my first tour and how I had to hide it from my family, and the jubilation when we heard that we were going to be Spearhead Falklands, the cheer that went up when we were told that we were going to Kuwait - soldiers aren't innocent, war-ravaged beings: most of them are lean, mean killing machines, praying - sometimes literally - for war. As Orwell said, we sleep safe in our beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on our behalf to those who would do us harm - don't romanticise the military.

Yeah as a child and brother of Navy people and someone who has fairly lefty antiwar politics, I trend to agree. A lot of the outrage on behalf of soldier safety is the antiwar mirror image of all the "support the troops" politics used to drum up votes and drown out dissent. Both lines of rhetoric use military personnel for what is essentially political pointscoring.

I appreciate that the antiwar line is largely reactive politics but it still comes off as patronising and leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

It is valid and important point to be concerned about plenty of other things. For example, poor equipment, unprosecuted abuse, deceptive or coercive recruitment, poor support for the injured or mentally ill.... but the mere existence of a war, even a dumb one, isn't a reason to be outraged on behalf of defense personnel.

Furthermore it is also slightly blinkered and selfish. A dumb war is a terrible thing largely because of what it inflicts on the people who live there, not because some of "our boys and girls" get hurt our killed.

 

[civver_764]

Yes, but what I am saying is, how do you keep people like Hitler from having an army?

By first recognizing that large, powerful, centralized militaries are inherently dangerous for society and refusing to support or join them. And then advocating that others take the same course of action.

So, WW2 example completely irrelevant... sorry, I can't follow this.
I'm also glad the US military was at least big enough to prevent Stalin from rolling over Western Europe.

It is irrelevant. It would be like me praising the USSR because their actions happened to have a positive effect in WW2. They still had a generally negative effect on the world. Same for the US.

If only the world were so simply black and white.

No, but they are wittingly taking a risk of death.

And?

One person's perspective is irrelevant. If you've managed to talk yourself into thinking that targeting civilians is ok, you are a nutter.

Again, I can say the same for people who joined the military looking forward to invading Iraq/Afghanistan. Sometimes it helps to consider peoples' perspectives, not because you agree with them, but to get a fuller understanding of the conflict.

In which conflict?

Probably all of them(I honestly don't know enough to evaluate every single one). War is profitable.

If the US military didn't care, there would be a WAY higher death toll. Having been in and serving on the ground as an infantry officer, I can tell you point blank that we DO care.

If the US military did care, they wouldn't have invaded other countries in the first place. The act of starting a war means accepting that innocent civilians somewhere need to die.

America isn't an imperialistic force... we just want to ensure we can continue to consume and carry on our lifestyle at any cost (except that of damaging our own environment, we'll let the other places do that).

No, "we" don't have any power over the wars. The government doesn't even live a lifestyle, it exists to fufill the interests of those who control it. And those who control it to a large degrees are the Oil and Defense industries, who make billions of dollars every time we go to war. That's what our military does, it makes money for those industries. That's pretty imperialistic if you ask me.

So, their only option was civilian targets? What about targeting things like the USS Cole, wouldn't that seem a little less insane?

I'm not trying to defend their actions, I'm just explaining their perspective and trying to get you to see things with a bit more empathy.

Well, you're basically living outside of reality here, making excuses for murderous terrorists targeting women and children, etc... it makes it tough, but I'll try.

I could say the same thing about you

 

[Borachio]

Link to video.

 

[kochman]

By first recognizing that large, powerful, centralized militaries are inherently dangerous for society and refusing to support or join them. And then advocating that others take the same course of action.

So, how do you see this coming into effect?
How do we get rid of people like Hitler from ever being in the gene pool again?

It is irrelevant. It would be like me praising the USSR because their actions happened to have a positive effect in WW2. They still had a generally negative effect on the world. Same for the US.

So, you're now saying, stopping Hitler had a generally negative effect on the world?

And?

That's all you got?

Again, I can say the same for people who joined the military looking forward to invading Iraq/Afghanistan. Sometimes it helps to consider peoples' perspectives, not because you agree with them, but to get a fuller understanding of the conflict.

No, you couldn't, because even if they were excited about it, misguidedly, the intent of the government doing the action was not to target civilians.

Probably all of them(I honestly don't know enough to evaluate every single one). War is profitable.

So, WW2 was motivated by profit? Not by doing the right thing?
Sometimes the two can co-exist.

If the US military did care, they wouldn't have invaded other countries in the first place. The act of starting a war means accepting that innocent civilians somewhere need to die.

You need to address the politicians who command the military. The military is a tool, not an international policy maker.

I'm not trying to defend their actions, I'm just explaining their perspective and trying to get you to see things with a bit more empathy.

Look, if we were over there in say, S Arabia ruling with jack boots and running concentration camps, I could potentially condone any means for them to overthrow us... however, it was nowhere near the level where targeting civilians is ok.

I could say the same thing about you

You could, but you'd be completely wrong, as I'm pragmatic to a fault, if anything.

 

[civver_764]

So, how do you see this coming into effect?
How do we get rid of people like Hitler from ever being in the gene pool again?

It wouldn't matter if there were no large militaries that they could do their bidding with. They'd just be powerless racists.

So, you're now saying, stopping Hitler had a generally negative effect on the world?

No - I'm saying you can't judge an organization(in this case the US military) in the context of one event. You have to look at the whole picture, and the whole picture is not very pretty.

No, you couldn't, because even if they were excited about it, misguidedly, the intent of the government doing the action was not to target civilians.

Yeah, it was to overthrow a regime for the benefit of the oil industry. Somebody convincing themselves that fighting for that was a good idea could equally be described as crazy. But of course we know most soldiers didn't see things that way, just like Al-Qaeda didn't see things as "we're gonna kill 3,000 innocent people LOL" rather as "we're going to hit the evil US where it hurts". Perspective matters sometimes.

So, WW2 was motivated by profit? Not by doing the right thing?
Sometimes the two can co-exist.

They can co-exist sure, but the second one takes far greater precendence over the first. I'll put it this way: If there was nothing in it for anyone, we wouldn't have done anything about the Nazis.

You need to address the politicians who command the military. The military is a tool, not an international policy maker.

By "US military" I mean the US military leadership/US government leadership. Sorry for being unclear.

Look, if we were over there in say, S Arabia ruling with jack boots and running concentration camps, I could potentially condone any means for them to overthrow us... however, it was nowhere near the level where targeting civilians is ok.

So because we're not as bad as we could be it's ok to do bad things?

You could, but you'd be completely wrong, as I'm pragmatic to a fault, if anything.

Aand I could say that about myself too Making things personal won't get us anywhere.

 

[Hygro]

So, how do you see this coming into effect?
How do we get rid of people like Hitler from ever being in the gene pool again?

Hitler is the product of war in the first place. He would have been rendered irrelevant and some fringe weirdo even on the amazing chance he had grown up to be the same kind of person, had it not been for the first war. People like Hitler only come about precisely because there are large armies that had already been used.

 

[kochman]

Hitler is the product of war in the first place. He would have been rendered irrelevant and some fringe weirdo even on the amazing chance he had grown up to be the same kind of person, had it not been for the first war. People like Hitler only come about precisely because there are large armies that had already been used.

Yes, he is, somewhat.
We can't undo the past, though... right?

It wouldn't matter if there were no large militaries that they could do their bidding with. They'd just be powerless racists.

Until they won some elections, seized power, and decided to build the military, like Hitler did.

No - I'm saying you can't judge an organization(in this case the US military) in the context of one event. You have to look at the whole picture, and the whole picture is not very pretty.

Nor can you choose not to consider it... for the bad decisions that have been made, overall, the good decision of WW2 is still trumping. Or would you rather a world with a 3rd Reich running the superpower show?

Yeah, it was to overthrow a regime for the benefit of the oil industry.

An overly simplistic way of looking at it. I didn't agree with either war the US is in now... for the record.

Somebody convincing themselves that fighting for that was a good idea could equally be described as crazy.

I, for one, know many Kurdish people and Iraqis that would disagree with you...

But of course we know most soldiers didn't see things that way, just like Al-Qaeda didn't see things as "we're gonna kill 3,000 innocent people LOL" rather as "we're going to hit the evil US where it hurts". Perspective matters sometimes.

Still failing to see the justification of targeting civilians... "hitting them where it hurts" isn't going to cut it. There are a lot of places it would hurt that are military targets as well... The Pentagon, for example.

They can co-exist sure, but the second one takes far greater precendence over the first. I'll put it this way: If there was nothing in it for anyone, we wouldn't have done anything about the Nazis.

Sometimes that something is freedom.

So because we're not as bad as we could be it's ok to do bad things?

I didn't say that.

And I could say that about myself too Making things personal won't get us anywhere.

Talking about it on the internets won't get us anywhere either... I'm just killing time, personally.

 

[Borachio]

On violence:

Spoiler :

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy.

Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it.

Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth.

Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate.

In fact, violence merely increases hate.

So it goes.

Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.

Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that.

Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.

And yet WW2 came to an end through the use of violence. I suppose it is possible to reach some sort of an exhaustive conclusion through violence.

 

[kochman]

Some people just need killin' - unnamed army officer

 

[Borachio]

Leo Tolstoy:

“As a man cannot lift a mountain, and as a kindly man cannot kill an infant, so a man living the Christian life cannot take part in deeds of violence. Of what value then to him are arguments about the imaginary advantages of doing what is morally impossible for him to do?”

 

[Flying Pig]

Some people just need killin' - unnamed army officer

"It's fun to kill some people" - Gen. Mattis, USMC

 

[Bugfatty300]

“Killing is not so easy as the innocent believe.” Dumbledore, wizzard

 

[Borachio]

Repetition played heavily in attempting to condition firing as seen in Prussian and Napoleonic drills in the loading and firing of muskets. Through thousands of repetitions it was hoped that under the stress of battle, men would simply fall back on the learned skill to continue firing at the enemy. While this may have accounted for some increase in the firing of muskets in the general direction of the enemy, statistics from the Napoleonic era do not bear out the hit ratios that would indicate success in the method, success being determined by increased kill ratios

Link.

In conflict situations the dominance of midbrain processing can be observed in the existence of a powerful resistance to killing one's own kind, a resistance that exists in every healthy member of every species. Konrad Lorenz, in his definitive book, On Aggression, notes that it is rare for animals of the same species to fight to the death. In their territorial and mating battles animals with horns will butt their heads together in a relatively harmless fashion, but against any other species they will go to the side and attempt to gut and gore. Similarly, piranha will fight one another with raps of their tails but they will turn their teeth on anything and everything else, and rattlesnakes will wrestle each other but they have no hesitation to turn their fangs on anything else. Lorenz suggests that this "non-specicidal" tendency is imprinted into the genetic code in order to safeguard the survival of the species.

 

[Flying Pig]

'The good of the species' has been thoroughly discredited as a system for driving evolution, if it was ever seriously believed at all.