Military Misconceptions

Originally posted by cyberdude78
I'm in the military and I'd just like to say that I am anything but a dumb, deluded, or evil person. My job is to fix cargo planes, and I'm very proud of my job. Why is that?

Hi cyberdude,

I am not pointing fingers , well not too many, but you do realise that the Nazi's had cargo planes and as well? You do acknowledge that serving a military machine that ends up killing innocent people ( or enemies that were not enemies before they country got invaded) doesn't leave you blameless?

Because if I don't do my job then it means the men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan won't get the ammo they need to defend themselves.

They would not need to 'defend' themselves if they were not sent to fight a illegal war by their government; were the Nazi corpsmen/doctors hero's for saving the lives of those that were engaged in a criminal war?

It means they won't get their letters from home. It means they won't have a way of getting to Germany when they get injured.

Why would they need letters from home if they were home where the vast majority really wish to be? Why would German ( well American hospitals on those sprawling massive cities called military bases) hospitals where needed if they were not injured?

If don't do my job then people die.

They are dying any ways and that can not prevented no matter how well you do your job. The only way to really ensure their safety is to get them home.

And it's not just my fellow American warriors, it's whoever this nation decides to help out on any given day.

Practically non of the nations 'helping out' allowed their people any say the matter and the governments made the choice to send soldiers despite the best efforts of their citizens to stop them.

When a disaster such as famine happens in a third world country and we decide to help them out, how do you think those humanitarian supplies get over there?

Tens of thousands of people starve to death each day in those third world countries so excuse me if i call any help the US government/UN and or others are attempting a farce/misinformation campaign to hide the economic crimes, they committed, that resulted in these famines

Those bags of rice and medical supplies sure aren't going to walk across the Atlantic to get to Rwanda.

Which didn't save the multitudes that got butchered long before any supplies arrived. Why didn't the US government ( and the cargo planes) intervene to bring democracy and freedom to Rwanda? Ever wondered about that? Why choose to instead bomb the almost western European style Iraqi civilian infrastructure to oblivion while not even bothering to save those in countries where there is practically nothing to bomb? I would be both awed and shocked when the US national security state finally 'saves' a country that were not doing a relatively fine job of standing on it's own two legs before having it's civilian infrastructure systematically destroyed

Those supplies get there by way of one of my planes. Now if I don't fix the plane, that plane doesn't fly.

Could you at least stop fixing the intercontinental bombers then? I mean you don't have to break them or anything ( we can't after all trust the Russians/Chinese/North Koreans- insert enemy of the day) but perhaps we can kill the 'terrorist' without blowing up their families, neighbors and ( as seems sometimes the case) their streets and blocks?

And if my plane doesn't fly, then it means men, women, and children are going to suffer.

That is why I do my job.

There are far more suffering in the countries where the planes you repair does not fly to than there are like people suffering in the countries they do fly to. In fact if they stopped flying the world population would very likely increase quite a bit faster.

But other than those minor complaints your just doing your 'duty' so just ignore my complaints.

Stellar


[edit on 21-5-2009 by StellarX]

I am actually thankful that there are a large number of people who think that reason, logic, and goodwill will in turn solve problems.

I am glad there are those who would not resort to violence for any reason, and believe that violence is never justified.

I am glad that there are many who have no military individual and group skills that one naturally acquires by serving.

I find comfort in knowing that many hold this approach to be superior in the face of disaster.

Oh, I don't admire them, but I'm glad there's a whole bunch.

Anyone with any degree of intelligence instinctively knows that things in the world are not going well. More and more trouble spots, more weapons of mass destruction spread into more and more hands.

We instinctively know that one little misjudgment, and the whole thing can go sideways. There is increasing political unrest, even in the Western "civilized cultures."

As the world is now connected intellectually, financially, through trade, transportation, communication, and becomes more socially interchangeable, one incident, and like dominoes, the carefully crafted forms of organization can come tumbling down.

It's not really a matter of whether or not it will eventually happen, but a matter of when.

And in those times, a certain number always fall. Name a catastrophic event in human history, and there are large numbers that fall rather quickly.

Those who are determined, prepared, can get junk-yard-dog mean when it's called for, those are the ones to start over, and rebuild society.

So the more who have these twisted concepts about the military, who wouldn't participate at any rate, who would not defend themselves while holding to nebulous concepts of goodwill, THEY will be the ones to fall first, and fastest.

Natural selection is a functioning principle, and it works in the animal world.

Since on any given day we are one step removed from once again resorting to tooth and claw ourselves, the principle is self-explanatory.

Vets, especially combat vets, regardless of generation, regardless of foe, regardless of age, all feel a brotherhood among themselves that others cannot perceive.

Like kind, hold to like kind.

Bad news for pacifists, who likewise hold with like kind, and die with like kind.

The better chance at survival for the rest of us.

[edit on 21-5-2009 by dooper]

reply to post by StellarX


You raise some valid points, I won't deny that. I do happen to agree that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were constitutionally illegal (whether they were justified or not is a completely different debate), and I do happen to agree that war is one of the ugliest things mankind has ever introduced to the world. There are a lot of situations in the world that are by no means something for anyone to be proud of. I do agree that there's a lot more than we could be doing in terms of humanitarian aid. I completely agree that a lot more should have been done to help the people in Rwanda when they conducted one of the world's quickest and bloodiest genocides.

However, those are things that sadly are completely out of my hands. As much as I can donate to charity, speak out about atrocities, protest government inaction, at the end of the day there's still a lot of ugly things going on in the world. That is unavoidable, there will always be ugly situations in the world, right or wrong, that's just how it is. So the least I can do is lessen the effects.

Sure, we may not send nearly as much humanitarian aid as we should, but the least I can do is at least ensure that what aid we do send gets there. It may not be enough, but what my cargo planes send over is a lot better than nothing. Just because I don't agree with how much we do doesn't mean I should refuse to help out with what is being done. It doesn't even matter if we were the one's that caused those famines, I'm still going to make sure my plane flies to help give what relief we can.

Granted, there are going to be casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan until we pull out of those countries (for better or for worse). But the decision to pull them out is not my decision , that job belongs to a collection of elected civilians, not me. But if I were to stop doing my job all it would mean is that more people would die, and it still wouldn't change when we pull out of there. So why should I stop doing my job and let more people die than necessary? If you have a gripe about when we pull out, take it up with an elected official. But don't try to tell me that I should try to make the situation worse than it is. And don't try to tell me it's a good idea to try and protest a war by increasing the amount of casualties because I decided to not work on a plane scheduled for an aeromedical evacuation.

And it happens that I do believe in supplying our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan with the supplies they need. It really doesn't matter whether or not we should be in those places, those troops aren't the one's that made that decision. Now if it were Congress and much of the Bush administration actually over in those countries then there might be a case for me to take a couple days off from my job. However, they're not the one's over there fighting. Instead it's the soldier with a wife and two kids who just wants to support his family and make the world a better place for them to live. It's the soldier that didn't make the choice for the country to go to war, but went so that others don't have to. By volunteering for the armed forces and going over there it means that Congress won't institute a draft and send someone who's not willing to make the sacrifice. The men and women over there fighting for the rest of us aren't the one's calling the shots on whether or not we're in an illegal war or not, they're just the one's who get to deal with the consequences.

You ask me if the doctors who worked to save German soldiers were hero's. With the exception of the madmen that were performing the messed up experiments, the average German doctor in WWII was as much a hero as any other doctor doing his job. The average German soldier was not Hitler, the majority of them were human beings, just like the rest of us. There is a very large distinction between the average German soldier and your typical Nazi. So yes, the German army's field medics were indeed heroic in what they did (once again not including concentration camp "doctors").

Same thing goes with their cargo planes. The war may have been wrong on every level, but the vast majority of what those planes did was try to give their brothers and sisters what they needed. If I were in the shoes of a German aircraft mechanic in WWII I'd still do my job with the knowledge that not doing my job would only hurt the average guy rather than hurting Hitler and his Nazi regime.

As for not working on intercontinental bombers, I already don't work on them. I work cargo planes, I'm not qualified to work bombers. Those guys are in a completely different MAJCOM and totally different bases, I've got absolutely nothing to do with them. Nor would I want to at the risk of getting stuck at Minot.

Simply put, if my planes don't fly it does not mean the world's ugly situations are going to simply go away. All it'll mean is that those situations that we all wish would disappear will only be worse. Politicians are the one's making these decisions that you disagree with so much, it's the military's job to make the best out of the situation given to us.

Originally posted by StellarX
I know you could perhaps have gone too more trouble and found some sources which made no mention of police but as it stands two of your three sources mentions that police where either the target or that Iraqi police were wounded or killed.

So it doesn't count if Iraqi police were killed? Please explain to me how Iraqi police are somehow not Iraqi's and instead are US soldiers. You say they have been targeting the troops, I provided links that say otherwise.

I don't know why some people believe in this notion of 'mindless' violence against random people in public places.

Perhaps because they are blowing up random people in public places. Or do markets not count as public places that contain random people?

Two of the three cited sources involves the targeting of security forces; perhaps a poor choice on your behalf?

Police and soldiers are anything but the same thing and you know it. Feel free to continue pretending that they are though if it makes you feel better.

Imperialist have always blamed their victims for the atrocities they are 'forced' to commit in 'self defense'

Oh ok, I get it now. So it's our fault that the Sunni's and Shiites have been arguing over minor differences of opinion on religion since the beginning of time. Maybe you should look into their history before you go blaming the troops for something that they have had nothing to do with.

reply to post by StellarX


I'm afraid I must take exception to your prejudiced characterization of mercenaries. Clearly, well at least it's clear to me, you have no knowledge of any such men, much less any association with any of that sort. It shows in your implication that they are only in it for the money. Sure they get paid, as does anyone who does their job.

However the mercenaries I've known, and still know in some cases, are not in it for the money. Most, but not all of them, were at one time or another National Service Soldiers, for one nation or another. What makes them different from National Service Soldiers is that they get to choose their enemies, rather than having their enemies of the day chosen for them by a national government. Most are in it for their ideals, they fight who they will, and reject or accept contracts on that basis. Few ever get fabulously wealthy for their efforts, and many meet an early grave.

For examples of this "idealism", I refer you to the Soviet Afghan war. I can tell you about 3 fine young foreigners that went to assist the muj against the Soviets. Two were American, one was a Pole. All were idealistic. They worked that war for practically nothing, just food and accommodations. The accommodations were frequently open air, in less than optimal conditions. The food was whatever the muj was eating, and it too was frequently less than optimal. The Pole was killed by the enemy for his efforts. And he died a hero. But he died none the less. The Americans finally left the country, knowing that they'd done the best they could, and asking no man for praise. Their reward was in knowing that they'd made a difference, and they didn't much give a damn what anyone else thought about it. They weren't the only mercs there, either.

The same story, or variations thereof, could be told time and time again. Nicaragua. El Salvador. Rhodesia. Lebanon. Angola. Hundreds, thousands of other places, over centuries. And damn few of them ever got rich, or garnered any glory. Most got nothing more than condemnation from lesser men. Or an early grave. Most don't really care. They don't go for money, glory, or the approval of other men. They march toward the drums of war because they see a job that needs doing, and they don't ask your permission to do it. Which, I suppose, is why you, and much of the world that develop their opinions from the thoughts of others, rather than first-hand knowledge, look down your collective noses at them. I suppose it kind of grates that they care nary a bit what your opinion of them is. Not herd animals, these men. I don't know that I've ever been in the company of men who were more free.

Now, regarding your repeated use of the word "imperialist". If you'd just go the whole way and add the words "running dogs" on to that, I could almost imagine myself on the Berkley campus in the sixties, or at any one of the myriad socialist and/or communist meetings of the time. Not that there's anything wrong with it, you are, after all, entitled to speak your opinions, a right guaranteed by "rough men willing to do violence on your behalf", those same men you so freely belittle. Must be grand to be a superior being. I'll never know. But the use of certain terminology in your posts does tend to give your politics away.

Remember, folks, these mercenaries that get trashed by folks who know no better, are military men, too. I just wanted to clear up a few misconceptions on their behalf. Yes, as with any human endeavor there are some few who truly are just in it for the money. Those guys generally live fast, die young, and leave a tattered corpse. It's a misconception to lump all of them together, grafting the sins of the few on to the many, and tarring them all with the same brush.

nenothtu out

reply to post by dooper


Survival is a species trait. At the individual level everyone dies. Your vision of an ubermensch surviving the ruin he provokes on his peers is a Nietzschian founded puerile male domination fantasy. At the group level it's not hard to see why such philosophical atavism is detrimental to the group, because those that destroy all build nothing and "your kind" would result in the destruction of society, kids being brought up in the wild by uncaring parents and the gradual retrocess of civilization into a disorganised primativism.

Traditional indians fare better at civilization and gene propagation than full blown warriors. The only reason warrior genes exist in the species is because they are balanced out by more caring and civilized traits.

I'm not saying they are completely useless, I pay hommage to our hunter past, I'm saying that by themselves they are insufficient to maintain civilization. If you're a nihilist you should be fine with that.

Otherwise you should pay more attention to what you cogitate and what you say. Don't believe everything you think.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by Mindmelding]

reply to post by Juston


reply to post by Jenna


Apparently, college is filled with idiots. No wonder I could never last more than a semester at a time. I got my GED when I was 17. Last year at 26 I took the practice ASVAB. It took me under 10 minutes and I scored a 97. I truly thought the test was a joke.

This helps to explain why I don't connect with most people. I can't imagine over one third of college students taking the ASVAB not being able to hit a 40.

WoW!!



[edit on 22-5-2009 by unityemissions]

I've read this entire thread on "Military Misconceptions" (a real chore) and expected to read a vigorous back and forth on the subject. But no, we get a person who wants to put forth the idea "Political Ponerology".

I visitied the gentlemans site and Jenna has summed it up quite well. The guy wants to sell books and has a website which gives out little information and plenty of opportunity to buy the book. Not impressed in the least. (Especially the pictures of Bush, Cheney and the gang)

As a long time student of Physical and Cultural Anthropology, not once has the subject of "Ponerology" ever come up. One of the basis of Anthropology is to discover who we are by investigating our past through the diversity and distribution of our base languages, as well as examining the remnants of our "past" cultures through artifacts, anthropological digs, carbon dating and stories passed down from generation to generation.

Though some insights can be inferred by investigation of these artifacts, within their context, they make only possible explanations which may or may not have anything to do with its actual purpose. Therefore Anthropology in not an exact science. The same may be said about Ponerology.

IMHO, to interject a possible "psudo-science" Ponerology into this subject called "Military Misconception" and then try and argue its merits, reeks of a happy load of horse manure.

I've endured 50-60 units in Anthropological classroom time and weeks at archeological digs, and I have never heard this term uttered, ever!!!!

Maybe this subject should be debated in a Philosophy/Ethics class/framework where discussions about good and evil are debated daily or maybe in some other setting better suited for discussing fringe elements.

On the battlefield, its got nothing to do with nothing.

Oh, by the way, what problem did Zbigniew Brzezinski have with this book? He's about a evil as they come

[edit on 24-5-2009 by Oldnslo]

[edit on 24-5-2009 by Oldnslo]

reply to post by Oldnslo


Ponerology is more closely linked to psychology than anthropology, so it's no surprise you are not versed in it, especially since it's fringe. That it is not an exact science I can give in to.

But, in my understanding, the core idea, the macrosocial influence of psychopathy, is very valid, in politics and in the military, and should be considered whenever we have a large group of people and hierarchical structure.

You should give the idea more time before fertilizing your mind, as it's easy to dismiss something out of hand, but the dynamics put forth by ponerology are key to understanding the world today. A lot of people, especially those with stable routines, fail to notice this, but those of us who are "out there" have seen enough cases of psychopathic behaviour in power to be able to lateralize and see there is a pattern. That pattern is ponerology.

But those that don't, well, don't. We all lose though, because bringing ponerology into the public eye would do wonders in stopping situations like torture, mass detainment of civilians, genocide, etc.

reply to post by Mindmelding


I REALLY suggest you start a thread on ponerology. We get the point.

I will also, please, by request ask you to not comment further on this thread, atleast until Tuesday.

Show a little respect.

reply to post by Mindmelding

No, survival is not a species trait as you would imply. Survival is a set of learned and acquired characteristics, enhanced by a natural or circumstance situation awareness, enabled by a mind-set of determination.

In Special Forces, some of the finest physical specimens of manhood fall out of training every day. They can't handle it. They don't have the mind that can will the body after it declares, absolutely, positively, no more.

They keep going. And when after several days of getting no sleep, even their conscious minds can no longer will the body to continue, there's always another click, another hour, another effort.

The limitations of these few are nothing more than a theoretical possibility, because they've never been reached.

So much for a species trait.

I don't care whether you pay homage to the warrior class or not. Homage? To what?

Did you just get past Psych 101? You talk like you have just taken a Psychology course and still have your book, and of all folks, those with a psychology course under their belt are the most limited in their thinking and most uninformed.

Especially when it comes to military matters.

Here's your first clue: success in warfare is counterintuitive.

You'll never find that in a psychology book.

Come to think of it, there's really not all that much to learn in a psychology book.

Now I can say that for what it does, the military does an excellent job. I grew up in a military family, did 4 years and go out, as it was not for me. However, what I must think is that the upper command levels, well that is where the buck must stop. Too many times I see where there has been something that is not quite right, and the upper command just hangs someone out to dry, instead of standing up for their men. The military like a country has to go through its own growing pains and changes.
It is a good cross section of the people of the country, both good and bad.

Originally posted by Jenna
So it doesn't count if Iraqi police were killed? Please explain to me how Iraqi police are somehow not Iraqi's and instead are US soldiers. You say they have been targeting the troops, I provided links that say otherwise.

Hi Jenna,

I does 'count' if Iraq security forces or contractors from other countries are killed and my point is that these attacks are targeted to kill anyone who is aiding the occupiers. Just like the IRA killed more fellow Irish than they killed British occupation troops so the Iraq resistance will kill more those Iraqi's that are suspected to be or clearly aiding the occupation forces.

As for 'troops' i obviously meant everyone under arms acting against the best interest of Iraqi's by serving outsiders.

Perhaps because they are blowing up random people in public places. Or do markets not count as public places that contain random people?

Neither Iraqi bombs or American bombs are known for being able to tell innocent from guilty and yet here we are again forced to presume or accept that the Iraqi's are blowing up random people in random places when that doesn't seem to be norm for anyone. Why is it that you have to believe that the violence is truly random? Why must US enemies always be painted as mindless criminals who kill without reason or logic?

Now perhaps some suitably indoctrinated people will fall for that kind of ridiculous propaganda but not everyone will and those who don't will mock such beliefs as they rightly should be.

Police and soldiers are anything but the same thing and you know it. Feel free to continue pretending that they are though if it makes you feel better.

It is exactly the same thing in a occupied country. I understand that one can feign ignorance about the role of the police during a occupation but i do come from South-Africa and do understand the true role of police in any country. Perhaps if you took off your blinders you could notice that the police in the US have managed to put somewhere between 3 and four million Americans somewhere in the US justice system showing that they will follow orders from on high rather than consider the effects it's having on their neighborhoods?

Oh ok, I get it now. So it's our fault that the Sunni's and Shiites have been arguing over minor differences of opinion on religion since the beginning of time.

No, that is not your fault anymore than you are responsible for the 'minor differences' between catholics and protestants and the thousands of other Christian sects. What IS the fault of the invaders&occupiers is to suddenly feign ignorance about the state of affairs when the power vacuum they create leads to old scores being settled and millions of people being displaced or forced to flee to other countries.

Maybe you should look into their history before you go blaming the troops for something that they have had nothing to do with.

I do my best to 'look into' history as much as i always have and i see no reason to blame the high levels of sectarian violence on anyone but those who upset the regional balance of power. You can not just go about invading foreign countries with insufficient troops ( 250- 450 thousands needed) to keep the peace and then insist that it isn't your fault that the opposing groups that are fighting both you and each other are contributing to the violence you instigated by invading their country.

I mean sure it might make you feel less culpable and responsible as a country but that is the nature of the blameless imperialist nation who never quite can understand why others don't appreciate being invaded and occupied in their own 'best interest'. Perhaps if you were more open to learning from all the past invasions and occupations the US has staged you could have figured out that the people of the world are a thankless bunch and it just isn't worth invading them to give them the 'democracy' they apparently don't want?

Then again no one has ever claimed that the citizens of imperialist nations are faster learners than the rest of us. Good luck.

Stellar

Originally posted by cyberdude78
You raise some valid points, I won't deny that. I do happen to agree that the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were constitutionally illegal (whether they were justified or not is a completely different debate), and I do happen to agree that war is one of the ugliest things mankind has ever introduced to the world.

Hi cyber,

We don't often spend the time to make a list of all the things we agree on but i suspect that our differences in opinion wont be as obvious in our interaction with others. Having said that we are pretty much here to discuss what we don't agree on so that's what i will do while trying to be as civil as you have been.

I think you rightly state that a war is 'one of' the ugliest things mankind has introduced but i think we could agree that a unjust peace ( maintained trough violent oppression) or undeclared economic predation is even worse. I think one can quite legitimately argue that the long and violent history of mankind suggests more about our willingly to defend our right to local independence than it does about a inate trend in human nature.

As to the justification for the wars in question i think both pre and post war evidence suggested that they were neither justified or had a high probably of success.

There are a lot of situations in the world that are by no means something for anyone to be proud of. I do agree that there's a lot more than we could be doing in terms of humanitarian aid. I completely agree that a lot more should have been done to help the people in Rwanda when they conducted one of the world's quickest and bloodiest genocides.

And yet these things are not getting done while billions are spent each month on the oppressive occupations as staged in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why i would like others to understand is that it's not a question of these things simply not happening but distinct choices that are being made in favor or oppressive interventionist policies that are by no means accidental with coincidental violent oucomes.

However, those are things that sadly are completely out of my hands. As much as I can donate to charity, speak out about atrocities, protest government inaction, at the end of the day there's still a lot of ugly things going on in the world. That is unavoidable, there will always be ugly situations in the world, right or wrong, that's just how it is. So the least I can do is lessen the effects.

What you say is accurate but what i would add is that you do not seem to be aware that you are serving the very country that has done most to propagate the economic system, as defended by instigating civil wars and ousting democratically elected leaders, that is killing tens of millions of people each year. You argue that you are merely a cog on a wheel without understanding that when you help to turn this wheel it will inevitably trample the poorest of the world. If you do you work more efficiently and with more sacrifice you are just compounding the problem.

I also reject the claim that the problems the world currently faces where unadvoidable when our history speaks volumes as to how much the current and former imperialist nations had to do , at great cost to their citizens, to bring about the current world order. Now you might still be accurate in stating that the world may turn our worse if we tried something else but that opinion/belief i would disagree with at length.

Sure, we may not send nearly as much humanitarian aid as we should, but the least I can do is at least ensure that what aid we do send gets there. It may not be enough, but what my cargo planes send over is a lot better than nothing.

But just how often is US aid really food or anything that could not generally be called war materials? You do realise that aid, food especially, would be best and cheapest to send by ship, right? As i suggested before this is in my opinion the wrong way of going about delivering aid and while the Berlin airlift and similar things proved many things about the capacity of NATO it certainly didn't prove that it was a humanitarian air group.

Just because I don't agree with how much we do doesn't mean I should refuse to help out with what is being done. It doesn't even matter if we were the one's that caused those famines, I'm still going to make sure my plane flies to help give what relief we can.

There are organizations that you could join that also operates ,cargo, planes that NEVER uses them to drop bombs or supply weapons even if the food might still land up in the wrong hands. Perhaps if the record of the US armed forces ( and USAF in particular) were different i could believe that it serves a non violent purpose but it isn't and therefor i must reject your arguments/excuses that what you are doing is beneficial to the world.

Granted, there are going to be casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan until we pull out of those countries (for better or for worse). But the decision to pull them out is not my decision , that job belongs to a collection of elected civilians, not me.

Ideally it belongs to a collection of elected civilians but what if they keep doing exactly the opposite of what the civilians want or spread the very lies trough a complicit media that would gain support for what they wish to do? How can a well informed person keep participating in a system that keeps yielding death and destruction by claiming that it's his orders and that there is a proper oversight? Why do so many keep showing faith in organizations that keeps making the same 'mistakes' based on the same old lies of foreign enemies?

But if I were to stop doing my job all it would mean is that more people would die, and it still wouldn't change when we pull out of there. So why should I stop doing my job and let more people die than necessary?

The US armed forces couldn't invade or bomb other countries with the support of people such as yourself and to argue that everyone should just do what their told, in the belief that they are 'saving lives( American lives? What about those getting killed?) until their are told differently. This defense was firmly rejected a the Nuremberg trials and in my opinion for good reason. Obviously it was just applied to the then defenseless Germans and Japanese war criminals but that should not diminish the law.

If you have a gripe about when we pull out, take it up with an elected official. But don't try to tell me that I should try to make the situation worse than it is. And don't try to tell me it's a good idea to try and protest a war by increasing the amount of casualties because I decided to not work on a plane scheduled for an aeromedical evacuation.

The difference being that your only considering some of the casualties which pales in comparison to those suffered by the people that are being occupied. I understand that 'they' don't ( Because they are all 'terrorist' or 'evildoers', women and children included) figure into your math but they do figure into mine and also into much of the rest of the worlds. I can understand that everyone needs to get paid somehow but i will continue to reject the idea that serving a known aggressor state is so easily excusable.

And it happens that I do believe in supplying our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan with the supplies they need. It really doesn't matter whether or not we should be in those places, those troops aren't the one's that made that decision

I can agree that there are plenty more victims than just Iraqi's and Afghans ( going on 5000 dead American soldiers) but would you agree that the Iraqi's and Afghans are far greater victims than however badly supplied American occupation forces? We all know that aiding in the commission of a crime is punishable by law so how can it be argued that supplying in the aid&comfort ( like Hussein supposedly gave the 'terrorist') of those participating in a illegal occupation is just OK? Why isn't it easier for you to simply quit participating in this criminal, under at least international law, enterprise? I have my ideas but fine, i will leave it at that.

Now if it were Congress and much of the Bush administration actually over in those countries then there might be a case for me to take a couple days off from my job. However, they're not the one's over there fighting.

Yes, and back in Imperial Rome and Greece the nobles were on the battlefields and very famous citizens ( merchants, princes, etc) got killed when things went pear shaped. These days you can apparently fool enough fools into doing the dirty work so you don't even have to leave your office. Why do you think they are not the one's over there fighting? Because they are just spineless cowards or because they don't feel like risking their lives until it was actually threatened?

Instead it's the soldier with a wife and two kids who just wants to support his family and make the world a better place for them to live.

Since i am doing my best not to indulge in too much overt insults i will just say that i don't see how it can serve your defense to argue that your aiding the crimes of others because you need a income. But that's just how i see it and i wonder why you ( others) couldn't rather fight for or support those who are fighting for decent jobs that doesn't involve killing or fighting. But yes, no one has offered to pay me to do what i see as the logical 'right thing' and i know that the system tends not to reward action that undermines it.

Continued

It's the soldier that didn't make the choice for the country to go to war, but went so that others don't have to.

Right, if only i were so blindly idealistic that i would join a aggressive war against a country that never threatened mine.... As for 'doing so that others don't have to' i really, really don't want anyone fighting for me that will risk his life despite that being against both our interests. The fact that that his country never officially sent him should perhaps help stay his hand but again it seems it's more important to get paid than to worry about who legitimate the whole enterprise is.

By volunteering for the armed forces and going over there it means that Congress won't institute a draft and send someone who's not willing to make the sacrifice.

It also means that Congress can bypass the legitimate complaints these citizen soldiers will raise when they a forced to fight illegal wars against non threatening enemies. Hiring mercenaries ( Whatever they believe they may be fighting for is UTTERLY immaterial) is a tradition as old as humanity itself when rulers could not rely on their subjects to not turn the weapons given to them on their former rulers. A mercenary fights who he gets paid to fight but a draftee fights those who he believes are acting against his best interest, hence the problem with draftees and Kings and rulers not being in the business of easily handing them weapons.

I addition i take offense at the suggestion that citizens have not and do not rally to whatever flag they live under when it truly comes under attack. To tar and feather everyone who doesn't run off to war at the first sound of the trumpet with the 'coward' paint is doing a great disservice to your fellow citizens.

The men and women over there fighting for the rest of us aren't the one's calling the shots on whether or not we're in an illegal war or not, they're just the one's who get to deal with the consequences.

But they are NOT fighting for the rest of us as we never asked them too! Why would you go fight if you were sent by a executive decision by a few men who do not represent the best interest of the American public and misrepresented the issue ( Iraqi WOMD/Taliban as terrorist government) to boot? Is that not just staging a defense based in ignorance? " They didn't/don't know better and we should still appreciate their 'sacrifice" not matter how many innocent deaths their actions are resulting in" ?

You ask me if the doctors who worked to save German soldiers were hero's. With the exception of the madmen that were performing the messed up experiments, the average German doctor in WWII was as much a hero as any other doctor doing his job.

But what if you were ordered to do those messed up experiments or face execution for treason as many German soldiers did when they refused to carry out orders? Isn't that why the Geneva conventions contains articles that allows soldiers to make the judgement about whether a order is legal or not? How can we argue that soldiers who follow orders ( whatever they are) are anything but the perfect tool of oppression to whoever can compel him trough violence, incentives or , as we see more often, lies and misrepresentations?

I have no problem with the notion of heroism but will argue that in the service of tyranny it in no way benefits humanity. When the difference is understood perhaps we can move away from the notion that carrying weapons and receiving orders is somehow inherent noble, heroic or in the service of humanity or even your own country.

The average German soldier was not Hitler, the majority of them were human beings, just like the rest of us.

Yes, i know that and i would be both somewhat surprised and happy to find someone on this forum that have read as much period material as i have.

There is a very large distinction between the average German soldier and your typical Nazi. So yes, the German army's field medics were indeed heroic in what they did (once again not including concentration camp "doctors").

You wouldn't care for and probably wouldn't know the difference between the two 'types' as they used the same rifles that fired the same bullets. Should i have more sympathy for the Nazi soldiers who believed that they were doing the right thing and saving their country from a foreign threat by taking preemptive action, with the rest of German soldiers who believed they were doing their national duty or with those who were compelled to rather risk death than face certain death for refusing to serve? Does any of that matter on the international level when all those who participate ( whatever their reasons or legitimate excuses/beliefs) are creating irreversible effects and consequences?

Basically i can and will argue that with the level of freedoms we have today it's just far more efficient to use a volunteer army in imperialistic pursuits given how the state has lost so many tools in compelling the majority of it's citizens to fight against their best interest.

Same thing goes with their cargo planes. The war may have been wrong on every level, but the vast majority of what those planes did was try to give their brothers and sisters what they needed. If I were in the shoes of a German aircraft mechanic in WWII I'd still do my job with the knowledge that not doing my job would only hurt the average guy rather than hurting Hitler and his Nazi regime.

Not mentioning that the Nazi regime's power stemmed from every little guy , cog in the system, doing his little part in the belief that his part wasn't critical and wasn't causing THAT much harm. The Nazi regime executed men for refusing to fight but since the US can at best lock you up these days ( or get you fragged in the field like what happened to Pat Tillman) this is no longer a question of preserving one's own life but a question of either being ignorant of what is really happening or just doing what needs done to ensure that you can 'take care of your family'.

My intent is not to paint every member of the armed forces as a mass murderer as what i am trying to show is that the individual decent seeming actions of the vast majority enables the few who will kill, torture and butcher on command.

As for not working on intercontinental bombers, I already don't work on them. I work cargo planes, I'm not qualified to work bombers. Those guys are in a completely different MAJCOM and totally different bases, I've got absolutely nothing to do with them. Nor would I want to at the risk of getting stuck at Minot.

OK! I guess i will not be speculating as to why you don't wish to be associated with the bomber crowd.

Simply put, if my planes don't fly it does not mean the world's ugly situations are going to simply go away. All it'll mean is that those situations that we all wish would disappear will only be worse.

Agreed. All of the worlds problems will most certainly not be resolved overnight and my point is that we could at least in such a situation begin to allocate blame more properly. At this time and given the interventionist( and no, not in any type of productive or progressive way) record of the US national security state it's often easy to see how the US intervenes directly and almost always under suspicion by those who know their history. There is no way we can truly start to sort out the worlds problems until we can keep countries out of the direct affairs of others; no one state should be able to use state terrorism and violence on the scale the US has frequently done in the last half century.

Politicians are the one's making these decisions that you disagree with so much, it's the military's job to make the best out of the situation given to us.

If only the US armed forces were equipped or trained to make 'the best' out of military occupations i could have sympathy with such a view.Politicians ARE making the decisions but unlike those who participates in other organized crime rackets those who serve in the military still seem to get away with crying that they were only doing what they were told and paid to do. While you can legitimately claim that you are a victim too you must understand that that is why citizens fought to get rid of the draft and why we have put in place many mechanisms so that you would not have to serve the machinery of war. If you fail to employ all the systems we have put in place you can not and should not attempt to employ the excuse that it just isn't you fault and that you are not responsible for the crimes others ordered you to commit.

My apologies for using 'you' in all the many cases where i could have just as well said ' us', 'we' and 'them'; there after all more than a million Americans under arms and plenty of other soldiers from various countries that commit the same type of crimes without getting the attention the US armed forces/citizens are.

Stellar


[edit on 9-6-2009 by StellarX]

Originally posted by StellarX
I does 'count' if Iraq security forces or contractors from other countries are killed

Now see that's what I thought, but your last post implies otherwise.

and my point is that these attacks are targeted to kill anyone who is aiding the occupiers.

A car bomb blowing up in a market is not targeted at people aiding occupiers, it's targeted at people who are trying to buy food. Slight difference there.

As for 'troops' i obviously meant everyone under arms acting against the best interest of Iraqi's by serving outsiders.

And you would obviously be wrong. The word 'troops' means military personnel, or a group of soldiers. Not those in the military, and the police, and the people shopping in the market, and anyone with a weapon. And I hardly think Iraqi's who are shopping in a market are working against the best interest of Iraqi's. Nice try though.

Neither Iraqi bombs or American bombs are known for being able to tell innocent from guilty and yet here we are again forced to presume or accept that the Iraqi's are blowing up random people in random places when that doesn't seem to be norm for anyone. Why is it that you have to believe that the violence is truly random? Why must US enemies always be painted as mindless criminals who kill without reason or logic?

No they are not, but when you blow up a public market and kill a bunch of civillians it's pretty safe to say that you weren't targeting soldiers. I don't believe it's all random, I just am capable of understanding that they aren't just targeting troops. They are targeting troops, and police, and civilians who happen to have slightly different religious beliefs. Those are three separate groups, not just one.

Now perhaps some suitably indoctrinated people will fall for that kind of ridiculous propaganda but not everyone will and those who don't will mock such beliefs as they rightly should be.

It is exactly the same thing in a occupied country.

Iraqi police and US soldiers are not in any way, shape, or form the same thing. Just because they all carry guns doesn't make them the same. It's apples and oranges. Both are fruit and both have seeds, but they taste completely different.

No, that is not your fault anymore than you are responsible for the 'minor differences' between catholics and protestants and the thousands of other Christian sects. ...

First, I didn't say my fault, I said our fault. 'Our' meaning the US. I like how you agree that their conflicts over religion isn't the US' fault, and then follow with blaming their recent conflicts on the US.

I do my best to 'look into' history as much as i always have and i see no reason to blame the high levels of sectarian violence on anyone but those who upset the regional balance of power.

Really? The majority of Iraqi deaths, according to a recent study, have been caused by death squads. For your reading pleasure:

Iraq Study (Quote is from page 2)
Those death squads were seeking revenge for the deaths of Shiite civilians at the hands of al-Qaida and other Sunni religious extremists in suicide bombings and other attacks.

1300 dead in Iraq sectarian violence
Figures from the Iraqi police statistics department put the nationwide toll of violent deaths at 1,020 since the Samarra bombing, with the majority killed after being abducted by armed men.

Perhaps if you were more open to learning from all the past invasions and occupations the US has staged you could have figured out that the people of the world are a thankless bunch and it just isn't worth invading them to give them the 'democracy' they apparently don't want?

That they are, which is why I'm all for going back to staying out of the rest of the worlds affairs. We're damned if we do, and damned if we don't so to heck with it. Every last soldier we have needs to be brought back home and let the rest of the world rot for all I care. Let them take care of their own problems and then complain that we don't do anything. Couldn't be much worse than the crap we get now.

Then again no one has ever claimed that the citizens of imperialist nations are faster learners than the rest of us.

May want to turn your nose back down a bit. I'd hate for you to drown when it rains.


edit: formatting

[edit on 10-6-2009 by Jenna]

reply to post by Mindmelding


I hope that one day your view will be embraced by all people and that violence will never come upon the earth agian but until then there is the old Martial Arts saying " I come to you as a brother with open hand.. however if I must those hands will become fists and strike you down" The National Guard has shipped out in every major conflict since WW1 and what if running away got you shot in the back of the head you might share those views but your enemy probably doesnt. So its better for your family and friends to live on their knees back here then for you to fight. Look next to Hunter & gather, and prostitution Solider is the oldest profession. Pick up a book on Miltiary stratigy and read it Stop buying into the infowars stuff they really want to overthrow the government anyway Alex Jones is part of the NWO

reply to post by GorehoundLarry


I agree with the complete lack of etiquette with the handing out of bibles to Muslims ( they didn't have those instruction in ww2) and the torture expos'e. It is part of what the extremes of our culture have passed down to our children. The right "Every on must believe in our God" and the left those photos would be something you would have seen on Mtv on Jackass. However to judge many by what the few did isnt smart there are probably 6 times if not more as many people who don't do those things as the ones who have done them.

Originally posted by Mindmelding
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

There are no benefits to war. We are living in a civilization that is a shadow of it's potential and we are doing so largely because of the stranglehold the military, through use of resources and through strategic and planned suppression of individual freedoms throughout the globe, has on our entire planet.

All military have the same overlords, the lords of money, the masters of capital. You may buy the fiction that it's us vrs them at the national level, but the reality is that we are being played by psychopaths, tricked into suppressing ourselves.

And it's been like this for a very very long time.

No benefits to war?

That theoretically sounds logical. But obviously not accurately portrayed.
All things contain a positive AND negative. Life ADVANCES through action and reaction. Therefore, life is unbalanced.

And war is simply the byproduct of free-minds co-existing with other free-minds with the absence of harmony. If one side interferes with the other, then something must be done to balance that equation.

In order to do that, one side must either submit, compromise, or compete.
To either gain power, preserve power, or surrender it.

There are good things that come out of war... ALOT. Think of how the USA came to be just for shiz and giggles.

Im low on time as I am in class typing this. BUT consider the following:
And the only condition is, you MUST respond. Ignoring is NOT an option.
If the OP, or anyone challenges your opinion, would you accept the challenge or surrender and call it quits? Surly, if someone strikes you at a personal level and theres no escaping it, something will erupt.

That's how war starts my friend. One person gets and trouble, and so they bring their friends to help.

And trust me, you wouldn't have an internet to begin with if it wasn't for WAR.
At least technology wouldn't of advanced this quickly if it wasn't for it.