Support The Military?

[BeFree]

I don't think so and here's why..

The military is like a large corporation gone awry.

You don't go around claiming support for GE, Enron and all the rest, do you?

We do support the workers at those companies, of course, because they are us. But to hell with throwing our hopes and dreams at the doors of these corporations and pray that they treat us right. Right?

We do support the individual soldiers because they are our fathers and sons and daughters and brothers. But that is as far as our allegiance can be allowed to go because once individuals succumb to being GE, or Enron, or military, they leave humanity behind.

[bahrbearian]

1. Hey, their over there Killing, to protect our freedoms!!

[flyingfish]

10. Yeah, they are killing to protect your freedom to use incorrect grammar

their?

they're for the grammatical incompetent.

Listen, first off you insult the military.
Then, you show just how smart you are by using the totally freeper grammar.

Democrats need to stop saying the military are a bunch of killers.
It really makes our party look bad.

[BeFree]

13. If not a bunch of killers

What then is the military good for?

Oh yeah, they can scare the shit outta everyone first so they don't have to be killed. Enforce the stealing of smaller countries natural resources, that's another one that our military is good for. We can do all that with a much smaller military than the one we are growing now.

How big does our military have to be and how much support is enough? Where is the end? What limits shall we ever place upon our military? Listening to people like you, flyingfish, leads nowhere but to total destruction of humanity and the planet.

How much military is enough for the likes of you? I've had quite enough of my taxes and my humanity expended upon the world's greatest killing machine.

If I had a choice between poor grammar or a machine gun or a MOAB or a nuetron bomb.....well, I can live with a ton of poor grammar, thank you very much.

[Blue_Chill]

22. How big is China military?

We have to be bigger then them....forever.

Does that answer your question?

[BeFree]

26. Yeah right

China has what 3 or 4 times as many people as the US? We won't be able to match them in size or firepower in a few years. That's why we must leave behind the idea that bigger and more guns will protect us. While a scenario such as yours may play out fine on a local level, the fact is that the US is a minority on the world stage.

[Brian Sweat]

40. China already has a much bigger military in terms of personnel.

We outspend them currently, but their economy is growing faster than ours. Even though we will continue to have a much higher per capita GDP than China for the forseeable future, their total GDP will exceed ours in about 20 to 30 years.

[camero]

29. Please tell me

How in the fuck they are protecting our freedom when they are letting Asscroft and company squash our freedom with the Patriot Act?

And just what does a pre-emptive war which bred chaos and disorder have to do with our freedom when there is still no direct evidence of them meeting with Al- Qaeda or of having WMDs.

They are just as complicit in this crime against humanity as Bush himself by not going AWOL like Bush himself.

[roguevalley]

2. support the kids. they don't want to be there.

as for the military, its time to take it back to
what its supposed to be too. get bush out and we
have a chance.

[beanball]

24. The Military

is there for our protection,it should not be used to bully defenceless countries that the Bush mob dislikes.

[beanball]

25. It seems to me

that our country dislikes the A.A.A.the countries that are arabs,asians or africans,am I wrong?

[Pocho]

3. WHETHER I SUPPORT THEM IS A MATTER OF WHICH ONE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT

and I suspect we may differ.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

4. I agree

We've been conditioned to such a knee-jerk reaction when it comes to "supporting the troops". They always couch it in terms of the truth, but what they really mean is, support the military industrial complex and our insatiable appetite for both money and power.

But if you object to this sort of thing, you're accused of wanting Johnny American shot in Bagdhad.

The right wing is taking away all of the discrete shades of gray that exist in the real world, leaving us with only black or white, 0 or 1, on or off.

[InkAddict]

31. Let's re-write history in

HEX!

Yours truly
Unemployed American IT Geeks

[mike_c]

5. agreed, 100 percent....

The military, and by that I mean individual soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen, deserve our absolute support when they are serving in our defense, or in defense of our fundamental values when those values are under direct attack. But when they are serving as instruments of a corrupt foreign policy they are little better than thugs and enforcers, war criminals at best, and deserve neither support nor respect. When so used they violate their own oaths, and betray the principles they are pledged to defend.

[beanball]

27. Support

Mike you are so right.

[texastoast]

52. I beg to diffah . . .

Seem to me like the folks all cuddled back in their nice homes, sitting on their fat asses, bitching about the price of gas, and doing nothing about bringing our kids home are the war criminals. Our military men and women pledged allegiance to this nation, and this nation basically lay down when the shrub stole the election and began to use the national resources for his own personal agenda and that of a few corporate goldhats. This military complex has brainwashed 18- and 19-year-olds into believing they are doing the right thing. These kids believe in an America that has left the building.

We are the thugs for not routing the current corrupt regime with a fine dose of tar and feathers. We remain so as long as we do nothing.

[Forkboy]

6. uh oh

Carlos is going to be sickened!

[Pastiche423]

7. GMFAO!

[YouNotMyBoss]

8. We have no choice but to support the DoD

Unless you don't pay tax that is.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

9. What kind of sheep world do you live in?

We can throw the motherfuckers out on their asses and elect a REPRESENTATIVE government that does good in the world, as those who are politicians represent would have it.

[YouNotMyBoss]

20. Until then you have no choice but to support the DoD

No? IRS? Jail? Fines?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

28. I don't define support as legalistically as you do n/t

[xray s]

11. I know a 21 year old sitting somewhere in Iraq

You better damn believe I support him. You know what he wrote home recently? He gets no sleep, because he has to constantly try to make sure people under his command are safe, and Iraqi civilians are safe, and a whole lot of people over there on the other side don't share those concerns. There is a target painted on their backs. It's hot, water and power are scarce, basically its hell.

The military does what its civilian leaders tell it to do. And quite a few are not real happy with those orders right now, but there they are. Away from friends and family, some getting killed almost every day.

Yeah I blame Bush, but I also blame "strategists" and the Democratic candidates who listen to their advice for failing to agressively debate and challenge Bush and the PNAC crowd last September, when it could have made a difference.

"Support the military" to me means fulfilling your reponsibilities as a citizen; voting, being informed, and convincing others to do the same so we do not have some arrogant jerk leading us into endless wars.

It means challenging the leaders in my own party when they are wrong, and replacing them if necessary.

It means working my ass off in the next election to try to change the direction this country is heading.

But don't you DARE tell me that kid I know in Iraq has left humanity behind.

[Mark Hartzer]

12. I support the 'soldiers', not the 'military'

I agree w/xray s. These young men and women are much like the British in WWI: Lions led by donkeys. For the most part, they're simply following orders, as required by their position.

With the exception of Gov. Dean, the Democratic candidates marched in lockstep w/Shrub. It's turned out to be a terrible mistake as predicted by all sorts of people. My .02

[xray s]

14. Welcome to the board!

:hi:

Lots of opinions around here. Just the way I like it.

[Caution]

16. Kucinich was against the war if im not mistaken

(Dean supporter myself but credit where credit is due)

[Dhalgren]

68. Yes, Kucinich opposed the war from the very beginning.

.

[Dhalgren]

69. Yes, Kucinich opposed the war from the very beginning.

.

[newyawker99]

32. Hi Mark Hartzer!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[BeFree]

19. The kid in Iraq

I have no qualm with him. He is face to face with the worst and best of humanity, I'm sure. He is not the military. Instead he is an individual who has been lied to and coerced into taking up the job he is now trying to accomplish as well as he humanly can.

You are right, it is the leaders who are to blame. But it is also the mentality which has allowed our country to build such a large and destructive force which can be sent to the foreign lands. Imagine a smaller and more constrained military. You can then imagine that a madman such as is the CIC now, not being able to send that kid over there to do the madman's dirty deed. Without the tacit support and enablement we have given to our military leaders that kid would not be between Iraq and the hard place he is now. Can you imagine that?

[xray s]

21. I think the military should be as big as it needs to be...

...to defend us from attack and keep our troops safe in their role as defenders. I also think its role has been stretched way beyond defending our safety to agressively assuring our ability to access cheap natural resources. Because of this, we now have a military force in over 100 countries. I think that is wrong. And, a lot of politically connected corporations are living in hog heaven down at Bush's pig ranch, selling their services and wares to Washington, ala Halliburton. And that pisses me off. :grr:

But I do not think people who wear the uniform are inhuman, which is how I read the last sentence of your original post. I strongly disagree with you on that point, if indeed that is the point you wanted to make.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BeFree]

45. Wow....

That's some kind of deductive reasoning you've got there, DGR. I'm not impressed.

[stanwyck]

49. Thanks from a Marine Mom

My son is in Okinawa, waiting to be deployed to Iraq. I support him. I support his fellow soldiers. I do not support our invasion of Iraq. DUers are wrong to blindly assume that military personnel and military families are in lockstep with the Bush administration. We're not. Our sons and daughters are not. If DUers continue to bash the military, you risk alienating a voting block which is increasingly attumed to DU beliefs. Don't stereotype our sons and daughters.
Well said, xrays. I appreciate your thoughts. The narrow-mindedness of supposedly progressive, liberal people on this board is extremely discouraging.

[NNN0LHI]

15. The wingnuts equate supporting the military with supporting Bush

Doing one means you must do the other in their peanut sized brains. You post makes a very good point.

Don

[ScreamingMeemie]

17. You can support a soldier and yet not the machine that he is part of.

Half, or more, of these boys/girls signed on because of educational-and other- benefits they were promised. They were looking to better themselves and unwittingly became part of Bushco's plot to take over the world. So yes, I can support them, and yet despise the military machine.

[pansypoo53219]

18. troops yes

pentagon-no way.

[Blue_Chill]

23. The military has done what exactly?

Or do you have a problem with the politicians that send them to do things.

[G_j]

33. The Pentagon?

from, where is the money? http://www.whereisthemoney.org/

"We reported that DoD processed $1.1 trillion in unsupported accounting entries to DoD Component financial data used to prepare departmental reports and DoD financial statements for FY 2000."

David K. Steensma
Acting Assistant Inspector General
for Auditing
February 26, 2002

"At the time we discontinued our audit work........ An additional 242 adjustments totaling about $59.6 billion, were made to adjust fiscal year 1999 activity."

Susan Gaffney
HUD Inspector General

[Blue_Chill]

37. So then we shouldn't support them because

they are as inept as any other goverment agency?

It seems to me the military gets blamed for the politicians that order them around.

[BeFree]

47. The military can take the blame, and they should

They are the corporation. The leaders of the corporation should always take the blame. Those leaders being both the politicians and the career military leaders. They really don't need to be protected from citizens scorn, do they? That's what you seem to be saying...

[Blue_Chill]

73. The military is run by a politician

President and the Sec. of Defense.

[G_j]

48. can you name another gov agency

that has 1.1 trillion $ unaccounted for?

How many Americans don't have health care?

This is not to let politicians off the hook who push through their pork, but there seems to be some house cleaning in order at the Pentagon for sure.

[Blue_Chill]

74. Can you name another that has a similar budget?

Also the Pentagon is run by a politician.

[Ein]

30. Military is trained in the art of killing

no offense to the veterans, really. I know plenty were forced into fighting a popular regime in Vietnam.

But seriously... our defense spending is just fucking ridiculous. The reasons our troops are deployed in circumstances even back towards our revolution, are fucking bullshit. Nothing but. People need to boycott it, as far as I can see, it would be the best solution to ending the strong military-industrial complex, as well as ending the elites use of middle and lower class lives to support thier own living.

[Trajan]

34. EVERY sovereign state ....

On this green earth MUST have a viable military capability, or be exposed to possible violation of their borders by those states that do ...

We are human beings: ... and human beings make war ...

Not YOU, mind you: .. YOU dont make war ... but many others will if they think they could get away with it ... this is the reality ... those who ignore this reality dont do so for long ...

I COMPLETELY agree that our present course is disastrous, as directed by Neocon policy, but lets frankly admit: .... The US needs a strong DEFENSIVE military in a nasty, brutish world .... No matter HOW much we hate what the GOP does with it ....

Human nature demands it ....

[BeFree]

38. Human Nature demands War?

Or are you saying human nature demands defense?

It has been my experience that, as a human being, a position of self-defense is demanded. And as a citizen of the US I stand ready to defend myself and my fellow citizens. What human wouldn't?

This issue, however, is one that is a defensive measure. If we allow an unfettered military to grow beyond all reason, as, imo, we have, then it behooves us to reduce it's power. That's why I say I can not support our military as a whole. It has gone awry. And it is not the foot soldier or company commander who has lead it astray. It is the mindset and spirit of the American people who have allowed this dangerous situation.

It is curious that no one here has disagreed that our military has grown too large and too cumbersome. That the leaders of said military, having taken control of it, have missused and abused their oversight.

The heads of the military are the object of my plea for ya'll to realize that we must withdraw our support and demand that our military be better controlled. You can't support the military and then out of the other side of your mouth say it needs to be constrained. That's my opinion, anyway.

[BeFree]

39. Human nature demands war?

Or are you saying human nature demands defense?

It has been my experience that, as a human being, a position of self-defense is demanded. And as a citizen of the US I stand ready to defend myself and my fellow citizens. What human wouldn't?

This issue, however, is one that is a defensive measure. If we allow an unfettered military to grow beyond all reason, as, imo, we have, then it behooves us to reduce it's power. That's why I say I can not support our military as a whole. It has gone awry. And it is not the foot soldier or company commander who has lead it astray. It is the mindset and spirit of the American people who have allowed this dangerous situation.

It is curious that no one here has disagreed that our military has grown too large and too cumbersome. That the leaders of said military, having taken control of it, have missused and abused their oversight.

The heads of the military are the object of my plea for ya'll to realize that we must withdraw our support and demand that our military be better controlled. You can't support the military and then out of the other side of your mouth say it needs to be constrained. That's my opinion, anyway.

[DealsGapRider]

35. Seeing anti-military threads has been my biggest disappointment....

...since joining DU.

My family is largely Repug, and one of the things I always hear from them is the question, how could you be a Democrat when they're so hostile to the military? Such questions tax my patience, but I try to explain that the Democratic Party has a long and noble history of supporting the military, from FDR and Truman to Kennedy (a war hero) to Scoop Jackson and Sam Nunn, Bob Kerrey (war hero), John Kerry (war hero), Dan Inouye (war hero), the list goes on.

But when I see threads like this, it makes me sick to my stomach. I know that the majority of DUers don't think like this, but seeing people call members of our military war criminals and suggesting that by joining the military they "leave humanity behind" is just grotesque.

Members of the military are servants of the public. They do what they're ordered to do by the democratically elected government of the United States, even when they have personal reservations about their missions. Moreover, the humanitarian missions they take part in around the world are too numerous to count.

Anyone who thinks members of the military have no humanity has obviously never spent any time around service members. The ones I know are some of the most decent people I've ever met, and it's an insult to suggest otherwise.

[BeFree]

43. Read the main post again

I thought I made a clear distinction between the foot soldiers and the military as a whole. Notice the idea of a comparison of the military to corporations and the seperation of the workers from said corporations?

Note, also, that I do not call for the military to be eliminated, only for the realization that it has gotten out of hand. I am sorry if your relatives do not see it the same as I do, but maybe they never had a first hand education of what occurs in the military as a whole.

[DealsGapRider]

44. It doesn't matter whether you're making a distinction...

...between low-ranking enlisted grunts and the generals. They're all the "military" and they deserve our appreciation and gratitude, not our contempt. They don't decide where to go or what to do...their orders emanate from the civilian leadership of our country. Most service members would prefer never to be deployed and never to have to fight. They are often the least enthusiastic about being deployed, but when the civilian leadership of the nation tells them to go, they salute and say, "Yes sir." Viewing the "military" in general with contempt is just plain simplistic and ignorant.

"...maybe they never had a first hand education of what occurs in the military as a whole."

Um, my dad spent 35 years in the Air Force. My great uncle was a POW of the Germans (yeah, he was one of those imperialistic US soldiers who...oh yeah, defeated Nazi Germany).

[BeFree]

46. Look up the word succumb.

The foot soldiers are not the military. They are the employees. Even you admit that they don't want to 'go there.'

My whole point in this exercise is to look at the military as a whole and compare it to whole corpoarations. If you can't see and understand that....well, there is no use trying to convince you of much else. Oh well.

[sangh0]

57. You're being disingenous

No matter how many distinctions you make, only a fool would think that would change how OTHERS will react when they hear "Don't support the military"

It's obvious to all but the densest of people that "the military" includes ALL of the military, and is not limited to the leadership.

My whole point in this exercise is to look at the military as a whole and compare it to whole corpoarations.

And again, you can make whatever distinctions, analogies, definition of terms, etc that you want, but people will interpret the phrase "the military" in the way it has ALWAYS been interpreted, regardless of whatever distinctions you make. If you think that merely explaining what you think the phrase should mean will result in others accepting your explanation, then you have far different understanding of how the world works than I do.

[kendric]

67. your solution?

The foot soldiers are not the military. They are the employees. Even you admit that they don't want to 'go there.'
My whole point in this exercise is to look at the military as a whole and compare it to whole corpoarations. If you can't see and understand that

The military runs on expierence. You are always going to have +30 plus years generals in charage, and carreer DOD civilians(your CEO's and management in charge of the corporation). No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

[G_j]

50. you may not want to draw a distinction

but their certainly is one.
I know most of my Nam Vet friends saw one. Remember Westmoreland?

[sangh0]

58. So what?

Of course there are differences between the ordinary enlisted and the leadership. However, the difference is not "the military vs the non-military". When one uses the phrase "the military", one is using a word that refers to both the regular soldiers AND their leaders.

[G_j]

75. I suppose

the same thing could be said about Walmart.

Think about this, while soldiers were dying on the ground in Viet Nam, Gen Westmoreland was lying about it to the country and cooking the numbers.

[stanwyck]

51. I agree 100%

This is also my biggest disappointment with my fellow DUers. I have grave concerns about the military industrial complex, the businesses which feed off our invasions and wars. I resent the amount of money that goes to the military and to these businesses. And not to the veterans. I am angered by the people who refer to my son as a babykiller or a criminal. He's a fine young man who does not deserve hatred from people he has never met who, ironically, share his political views. Yes, there are many liberals in the military. Yet the narrow-minded who continually bash our soldiers just don't get that; they're as close-minded and blinded by hate as the wingnuts.

[the_real_38]

41. Well let me tell you something...

... the symbol of the future is the soldier standing on a street corner. As global problems mount, you're going to be seeing this scene over and over again, and eventually in this country (probably in Compton first). We're going to be seeing more and more military fanfare (remember Bushenegger on the flight deck?), as our society grows increasingly conformist, police-controlled and militaristic. If you support the military, then you also support these trends. I choose not to.

[the_real_38]

42. Let me tell you...

.. the symbol of the future is the soldier standing on a
street corner. As global problems mount, you're going to be
seeing this scene over and over again, and eventually in this
country (probably in Compton first). We're going to be seeing
more and more military fanfare (remember Bushenegger on the
flight deck?), as our society grows increasingly conformist,
police-controlled and militaristic. If you support the
military, then you also support these trends. I choose not to.

[stanwyck]

54. No logic here

if you support the military, then you support these trends? How do you figure? It's not the military who makes the decisions on how our country is run. It's us. We elect the president and Congress. We're responsible. Face it. The Democrats we elected voted FOR the invasion of Iraq. It wasn't the soldiers. It was OUR elected representatives. And our "elected" President and his administration. Supporting the military is NOT the same as supporting a "police-controlled, militaristic" state. If that happens, we let it happen. Your position is passive. And your logic is faulty.

[the_real_38]

55. Wrong...

... the Bush administration is using 'support' the military to bolster support for it's actions. And eventually those actions are going to turn inward (especially if unemployment keeps going up). Support for the military is thus support for a new paradigm of miltarization and conformity that's being formed in American culture. Supporting the troops gives positive feedback to a group of men who want to use troops to establish some new empire. It's way too Roman for this guy.

[stanwyck]

56. Then why can't we

use "support the military" for our purposes? Why can't we encourage supporting the military as having them NOT used for unlawful invasions? Why just lie down and let the Bushies take over? There is plenty of potential for the Democrats to make inroads with the soldiers. Look at who the soldiers are: the children of the middle-class. Not the CEOs kids. Not the elected politicians kids. There is nothing keeping us from taking over the hearts and minds of the soldiers except people who think like you. You're forfeiting the game. You have to show up to win.

[the_real_38]

60. Wrong again

"Look at who the soldiers are: the children of the middle-class."

With all due respect, no. These are working-class kids, many of whom probably had no career prospects beside the military. I agree about the rich kids. If we had the draft, and some of these rich Republicans had to worry about sending their own little heirs into the line of fire, we'd have a lot less wars (I believe this was Charles Rangel's reasoning in trying to bring the draft back). Not only that, Bush is offering amnesty to some Mexican aliens who agree to join the military, which is a glorified death lottery.

"You're forfeiting the game. You have to show up to win."

Abolutely not. I'm just taking a stand that you don't like. And you're speaking from a point of view that I don't buy, for reasons detailed above.

"There is nothing keeping us from taking over the hearts and minds of the soldiers except people who think like you."

We need less soldiers, and better solutions to our problems than soldiers.

[stanwyck]

62. You're wrong.

I guess you missed the breakdown on who are soldiers are in the exhaustive New York Times article a couple of months ago. They're middle class kids. Not working class. They are better educated than the average American. (really, read the article. They have to have at least a high-school education to be in the volunteer army). They're not who YOU think they are. Start with the facts. My son is from a family with a combined income above $170,000. He has 1.5 years of college. He quit to join the Marines. Most of these kids are white kids from the suburbs. Read the stats. Like too many people, you're making assumptions without knowing who these people are. I strongly suggest you find out the facts by looking up the article in the New York Times about who comprises our troops. You should get educated before you make statements.

[the_real_38]

72. Do you have a link to the article?

I'd be glad to look at it. Are you sure you're not talking about officers being white here? And just because you have a high-school education (which is an seventh-grade one in Europe) doesn't make you middle-class.

And I hope your son is OK, but he shouldn't be in Iraq/

[stanwyck]

77. You haven't done your homework

I'm not talking about officers. I'm talking about the regular soldiers. I'll look for a link. It was the Sunday paper. (I only subscribe to the Sunday paper.) Very long article. Very publicized. CSPAN'S Washington Journal and many other newspapers, including USA Today, picked up the article. Don't know how you missed it. The breakdowns were on family income. Solid middle-class. Education. High-School +. Race. Gender.
And, No, high-school education does not equal middle-class. But family income does. You have misconceptions about who these soldiers are. By the way, when we went to Parris Island for our son's graduation from boot camp, all of the COs were non-whites. You really should take a closer look at who these people are that you hold in so little regard. I believe you're basing your perceptions on outdated war movies. Not reality.

[sangh0]

59. Sophistry

the Bush administration is using 'support' the military to bolster support for it's actions.

No, the Bush* admin is using "Support the President. Support the troops" to bolster it's support. "Support the troops" is NOT a call to support Bush*'s policies - It's a call to help the troops.

[the_real_38]

61. Sorry, but that's wrong, too...

""Support the troops" is NOT a call to support Bush*'s policies - It's a call to help the troops."

Conservative pundits sure don't make that distinction, and I don't see it too clearly spelled out in the ravings of the corporate media, either. YOu have to see things the way the are - "support the troops" sets up a positive feedback loop for Bush. I'll support the troops as long as they're at home guarding the borders, not on some errant empire-building mission. If they're doing that, they're part of the problem.

Too many soldiers and not enough food.

[sangh0]

63. Wrong

Conservative pundits sure don't make that distinction

Guess what? Conservative pundits don't rule the world. Stop taking your cues from conservatives.

YOu have to see things the way the are - "support the troops" sets up a positive feedback loop for Bush

Only if you let it happen. You are not limited to just "support the troops". I use "I don't support Bush*, his war, or his policies, but I do support the troops"

That's some "positive feedback loop for Bush", huh?

[the_real_38]

64. I wish I could believe that...

"Only if you let it happen. You are not limited to just "support the troops". I use "I don't support Bush*, his war, or his policies, but I do support the troops" "

But like I say, I see which way the wind is blowing. And Corporate Media encompasses more than just conservative pundits - the whole framework is in support of this New Imperialism.

And BTW, none of this addresses what I've said in these posts - I flat don't support what these troops are doing, period. They are part of the problem, and as I've said (and will repeat) - we need less soldiers, and better ways to solve our problems than soldiers. I don't support the troops. Let's leave it at that.

[sangh0]

65. You could, but you choose not to believe it.

Instead of responding to the right-wings attempt to hijack the military and the flag, you have chosen to abandon the fight, and recipe for certain failure.

The Repukes rely on reducing any and all ideas to slogans. We can't fight back by merely repeating our slogans, because that just helps the Repukes reduce us all to a bunch of slogan-repeating automatons. We need to make people thinks about the ideas and values, something that will never happen if you retreat and resort to repeating slogans like "I don't support the troops"

There's no idea there. There's nothing there that attracts anyone who doesn't already agree with you. It demonstrates nothing more than a desire to avoid the heavy lifting that needs to be done.

[the_real_38]

66. I don't think you understand...

... where I'm coming from or even why the troops are in Iraq. We need Iraq's oil. In fact, we need a lot of stuff, basic materials and the like, to grease the wheels of our consumer economy. Most of these materials are going to come from smaller countries with some measure of political volatility. Time after time, we have been forced and will be forced to rely on military solutions when the flow of these materials were/are threatened. The need for military action to ensure American economic security, is a given for me (read Michael Klare's Resource Wars if you want a sober and detailed assessment of this hypothesis). Thus the U.S. military is part of a paradigm of American economic domination of the globe. I think we could live by another system. This is what I mean when I say we need better solutions to our problems than troops.

A rational person joining the military should take these things into account - that he will actually be fighting for money in some form, though he may be obliged to participate in the odd peace-keeping mission. Thus they are fighting for something that (in my view) is morally wrong (killing or dying for money) , and had he properly deliberated this before signing on, he would be well-aware that he was doing so. If he didn't deliberate it, ignorance, they teach us, is not an excuse.

I don't support the troops.

[sangh0]

71. I know all that

However, the reality is that the phrase "support the military" refers to EVERYONE in the military, and is not meant to imply that one supports the policies they are pursuing.

A rational person joining the military should take these things into account

That's your opinion. Millions of Americans disagree with you, and assuming that "Support the military" will express your opinion is foolish. The phrase has been in use for decades, and the troops have never been held responsible for the policies the govt has the military pursue.

Actually, that's wrong. There was one time when the military and all of it's members were held responsible for the govt's policy. It was during the VietNam War, when returning soldiers were treated with contempt, treatment which we now realize was shameful.

And you want us to repeat it.

[the_real_38]

76. Oh, my...

... where do I start?

me: A rational person joining the military should take these things into account

you : "That's your opinion. Millions of Americans disagree with you, and assuming that "Support the military" will express your opinion is foolish. The phrase has been in use for decades, and the troops have never been held responsible for the policies the govt has the military pursue."

"That's your opinion" - do you think that if we were now involved in two high-death, full-scale conflicts, prospective soldiers would fail to take that fact into account? I don't think so. People going into the military generally do consider at least some things about service before they enter it.

"The phrase has been in use for decades."

Right. And it's always served the same purpose: a smoke-screen for the interests of corporate america. (cf. my previous post). So they've been fooling people like you for a long time.

"There was one time when the military and all of it's members were held responsible for the govt's policy. It was during the VietNam War, when returning soldiers were treated with contempt, treatment which we now realize was shameful."

A few hippies called some GI"s 'baby-killers'. I don't think John Kerry has been treated with contempt - he seems to be sitting pretty these days, but that's in part because he had the sense to turn against the idiotic Vietnam War. And, BTW, have you ever heard of William Westmoreland or My Lai?

[maha]

53. "The Military" isn't the problem.

"The military" didn't choose to invade Iraq. "The military" wasn't allowed to make post-war plans.

The people in charge are Rummy and the other civilian chickenhawks in the Pengaton. And in no way are these guys "military."

[StandWatie]

70. military is more like socialism

I always thought it was ironic that the most socialistic part of our entire society were the pawns for the twentieth century's battle with international socialism.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

78. "Support" too often translates to glorification.

As someone who spent 4 very long years in the marines, I sympathize with your post.

I have no quarrel with "supporting" the average GI's who are condemned to following (or disobeying and facing very ugly consequences), even the average officers (well, sort of). Even the generals are expected to follow orders they may not like.

The problem, as I see it, is that "support" too often becomes blind faith or glorification.

"Our troops" are usually young guys looking for job, looking for their manhood, looking to belong. For the most part they have bought into the adverstising. "The Marine Corps Builds Men", "Be All You Can Be In the Army", and other such absurd blather. Most of them are a long way from being politcally sophisticated. They are taught (brainwashed) not to question authority. The ideal soldier is the ultimate company man. "The Boss is Always Right". Most of them are in their late teens or early 20s. That age where most of us believe that other people may die, but not me.

They, for the most part, are not "heroes" or brave. They are the victims of groupthink and a truly tyrannical system. When they are told to fire at a "target" or "unfriendly" (the military never refers to people as people) they will do so. The military does a great job of reducing the feelings of responsibility involved in killing people by making people not people. It is sometimes a tragedy for the young soldier who was following orders to discover that that "target" was actually a person.

Support "them", the average GI, of course. Support the "military"? I'm neutral, keeping in mind that they are a tool of the government. Support the politicians that order the military to carry out it's policies and stick the poor young GI's in untenable situations. No.

Glorify it? Never. The primary function of the military, of individual soldiers, is to kill people. Whether it's at 10 feet with a rifle, or from 10,000 feet with a bomb.

War should always be looked upon as a failure of humanity.