F**k the Troops

**Universal Mind** · 01-31-2010 01:35 AM

"We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology."

- Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, former top leader of the Al Qaeda faction of the Iraqi insurgency

**StonedApe** · 01-31-2010 01:45 AM

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

"We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology."

- Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, former top leader of the Al Qaeda faction of the Iraqi insurgency

But how is violence the proper answer to this? Should we really stoop to this level of dualistic politics?

**Universal Mind** · 01-31-2010 02:05 AM

Originally Posted by stonedape

But how is violence the proper answer to this? Should we really stoop to this level of dualistic politics?

We don't want violence. We just want the democracy to be preserved. It is the insurgents who want violence, so we have to fight back to keep the new freedom going.

**StonedApe** · 01-31-2010 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We don't want violence. We just want the democracy to be preserved. It is the insurgents who want violence, so we have to fight back to keep the new freedom going.

Why? Why can't we just create a strong free society and flourish. If we do this then other countries will want similar things. The thing is we don't really have a free society, we have a consumer society and the Iraqi community relates that with democracy. If we want democracy to be preserved, maybe we ought to preserve for ourselves first. Our electoral process is in the toilet and we are running around playing cowboys and Indians.

It would be great if they were democratic, but how the hell does that warrant us going into their country and starting a war?

If all we wanted was to preserve democracy, then why did we start a war?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I never said anything remotely close to this. If a Marine beats his wife, he goes to jail just as any other person would. Obviously killing enemy combatants on a battlefield is a little different than murdering in cold blood back home. Military personnel aren't allowed to walk around America punching people in the face because of their uniform, what makes you think they are exempt from the law?

War is people in uniforms acting inhumanly. I consider the military to be a gang. They are people who use violence to achieve political goals. Why is it that a different morality applies to life in the great ritual of battle?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Get off your high horse. It boggles my mind that people can be this self-righteous. How exactly is killing on impulse better than killing by calculation? American soldiers are not mercenaries, mercenaries are mercenaries (private contractors.) So why do you people keep talking about the money? If there is one thing in life that I am absolutely sure of, it is this: NOBODY joins the Marines/Army/Navy/Coast Guard for the money. Some people may join for benefits, they may join to stay out of jail, they may join to pay for college, they may join to prevent homelessness, but they do not join because the money is good. And infantry men join infantry because they believe in what they do, they understand the necessity of their existence. The people who only want to exploit the militaries benefits usually look for the easiest job in the military, you won't find people like that in the infantry. Bring your nose out of the sky and realize that the majority of people know exactly what they are getting into when they join the military. It is insulting beyong belief that you assume they are too brainwashed/naive to realize what they are doing.

The way I see it, killing is killing. It's a very fucked up thing to do. People should avoid doing it unless they have to. There's no reason at all that we need to kill people in war. If these people realize that they don't need to go around killing people and still do it they are terrible people. If they don't then they are naive. If you think that killing in the name of freedom makes sense you are very naive in my opinion.

**Universal Mind** · 01-31-2010 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by stonedape

Why? Why can't we just create a strong free society and flourish. If we do this then other countries will want similar things. The thing is we don't really have a free society, we have a consumer society and the Iraqi community relates that with democracy. If we want democracy to be preserved, maybe we ought to preserve for ourselves first. Our electoral process is in the toilet and we are running around playing cowboys and Indians.

It would be great if they were democratic, but how the hell does that warrant us going into their country and starting a war?

If all we wanted was to preserve democracy, then why did we start a war?

It was one goal of many. The war has been about a long list of reasons. Islamofascists hate democracy on a major level, not just consumerism. They think the only law book for a country should be the Koran, which isn't exactly big on human rights. However, most of the Iraqi people are not fascists or fundamentalists. They love democracy and vote in even higher percentages than we do, despite death threats from insurgents.

Our society could definitely be more free, but compared to what the Islamofascists want, we barely have any rules.

Originally Posted by stonedape

War is people in uniforms acting inhumanly. I consider the military to be a gang. They are people who use violence to achieve political goals. Why is it that a different morality applies to life in the great ritual of battle?

Originally Posted by stonedape

The way I see it, killing is killing. It's a very fucked up thing to do. People should avoid doing it unless they have to. There's no reason at all that we need to kill people in war. If these people realize that they don't need to go around killing people and still do it they are terrible people. If they don't then they are naive. If you think that killing in the name of freedom makes sense you are very naive in my opinion.

You said you believe in having militias. How are they different?

**StonedApe** · 02-01-2010 03:07 AM

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It was one goal of many. The war has been about a long list of reasons. Islamofascists hate democracy on a major level, not just consumerism. They think the only law book for a country should be the Koran, which isn't exactly big on human rights. However, most of the Iraqi people are not fascists or fundamentalists. They love democracy and vote in even higher percentages than we do, despite death threats from insurgents.

Our society could definitely be more free, but compared to what the Islamofascists want, we barely have any rules.

So what? If we are going to spread democracy, we ought to get it right ourselves first. Our government is a miserable failure. Don't forget the bailout.

There's no fucking way that these fools are going to be successful in creating a one world theocracy. Their ludicrous threats do not justify a war.

How can we stop them by stooping to their level? If we believe in human rights, how can we go into someone else's country and start a war? How would you feel if some aliens came down to this planet and started a war because they thought that we were fools who could not liberate themselves?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You said you believe in having militias. How are they different?

Militia's are used only in times of need. Militia's aren't used to invade other countries. Self defense is the only kind of justified violence. They also, at least to my understanding, don't recruit and brainwash people. If you don't understand what I mean by brainwashed, watch the first 2 minutes of the 2nd video I posted. This guy did not come to those conclusions on his own.

Would one of you 2 mind stating under what conditions you believe that invading another country is justified? I seem to remember talking about this before and coming to the conclusion that you(UM) have a number of weak arguments for why we should invade and the combined pressure justifies the war for you. I really don't see how this works. Unless there is at least one major threat, how is a preemptive strike justified?

**Universal Mind** · 02-01-2010 06:12 AM

Originally Posted by stonedape

So what? If we are going to spread democracy, we ought to get it right ourselves first. Our government is a miserable failure. Don't forget the bailout.

There's no fucking way that these fools are going to be successful in creating a one world theocracy. Their ludicrous threats do not justify a war.

How can we stop them by stooping to their level? If we believe in human rights, how can we go into someone else's country and start a war? How would you feel if some aliens came down to this planet and started a war because they thought that we were fools who could not liberate themselves?

We don't have to have a perfect democracy ourselves before we clean up shit holes that breed backward ass Islamofascists who think they are making Allah happy by killing masses of Americans. The Middle East in most places is centuries behind us, and we are trying to change that. We don't have to be Utopia ourselves to do that. Our concern is terrorism, not one world theocracy. We are just concerned about the insane shit they will do in their efforts to create one world theocracy.

If we had a government like the Hussein regime, I would hope every day that aliens would come and liberate us.

Originally Posted by stonedape

Militia's are used only in times of need. Militia's aren't used to invade other countries. Self defense is the only kind of justified violence. They also, at least to my understanding, don't recruit and brainwash people. If you don't understand what I mean by brainwashed, watch the first 2 minutes of the 2nd video I posted. This guy did not come to those conclusions on his own.

What would American militias have done to stop the Nazis in Europe?

Originally Posted by stonedape

Would one of you 2 mind stating under what conditions you believe that invading another country is justified? I seem to remember talking about this before and coming to the conclusion that you(UM) have a number of weak arguments for why we should invade and the combined pressure justifies the war for you. I really don't see how this works. Unless there is at least one major threat, how is a preemptive strike justified?

First of all, the current war in Iraq was not preemptive on our part. It was a continuation of the first Gulf War. The Hussein regime did not meet the conditions of the ceasefire, so we went back to war. The Gulf War was started by the Hussein regime when they invaded Kuwait. They were the problem. If you will read the post I linked in the second post of this thread, you will see the other reasons for justification.

An international terrorist government with a history of WMD terrorism and other terrorism that is historically our enemy is a threat in 100% of cases. However, the list of justifications for the war goes far beyond that.

Read post #3 in this thread...

http://dreamviews.com/community/show...%27s+ceasefire

**Caprisun** · 01-31-2010 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by stonedape

Why? Why can't we just create a strong free society and flourish. If we do this then other countries will want similar things. The thing is we don't really have a free society, we have a consumer society and the Iraqi community relates that with democracy. If we want democracy to be preserved, maybe we ought to preserve for ourselves first. Our electoral process is in the toilet and we are running around playing cowboys and Indians.

It would be great if they were democratic, but how the hell does that warrant us going into their country and starting a war?

If all we wanted was to preserve democracy, then why did we start a war?

War is people in uniforms acting inhumanly. I consider the military to be a gang. They are people who use violence to achieve political goals. Why is it that a different morality applies to life in the great ritual of battle?

The way I see it, killing is killing. It's a very fucked up thing to do. People should avoid doing it unless they have to. There's no reason at all that we need to kill people in war. If these people realize that they don't need to go around killing people and still do it they are terrible people. If they don't then they are naive. If you think that killing in the name of freedom makes sense you are very naive in my opinion.

"War is people in uniforms acting inhumanly. I consider the military to be a gang. They are people who use violence to achieve political goals. Why is it that a different morality applies to life in the great ritual of battle?"

That is the way it has worked for the entire duration of human civilization. Some of histories greatest minds were military leaders, do you honestly think you are better than those men? Don't you think they would have protested war if they thought it was avoidable? There are men who devote their life to studying the philosophy and psychology of war, and they don't presume that war can be ended. There is a separate morality for war, it is a necessary evil. It is something that is built into human psychology, it is something that cannot be overcome by consciousness. There are too many people. If all countries were to lay down arms this very moment, someone, somewhere would eventually take advantage of the situation. A smart man knows this, which is why he would never give up his power in the name of some pipe dream.

"The way I see it, killing is killing. It's a very fucked up thing to do. People should avoid doing it unless they have to. There's no reason at all that we need to kill people in war. If these people realize that they don't need to go around killing people and still do it they are terrible people. If they don't then they are naive. If you think that killing in the name of freedom makes sense you are very naive in my opinion."

Yes, we should avoid killing unless we have to. We have very strict rules of engagement, so strict in fact that they endanger the lives of our soldiers. Our rules of engagement are a tactical hinderance that serve no other purpose than to appease people like you. These rules commonly state that we are not allowed to fire unless fired upon. There are cases where the enemy is standing in the open, and we know its the enemy, and we know they are gathering intelligence for the best way to kill us, but we can't do anything about it. The killing in Iraq is initiated by the insurgents, it is therefore necessary for us to kill them. We can't walk away and let these people be, because they WILL follow us home. You and I both know that they won't give up until we either conform to their standards or cease to exist, whichever comes first. Can you not see the necessity of this conflict? Now I will submit that maybe it didn't need to take place in Iraq in particular, but we can't go back in time. I am not crazy enough to believe Islamofacists are going to take over our country, but I'll be damned if Im going to sit around and watch their attacks happen. Where is the justice in that? Maybe if we ignore them they'll go away right?

**SpecialInterests** · 02-01-2010 02:10 AM

War is old, rich, white businessmen sending young middle and lower class to go and die so they can protect or expand their property. That's all it's ever been.

I said this to my mom before and explained to her why soldiers are not my heroes like we're told to believe. Later I found out from my sister that my mom said if dad found out about this I'd be kicked out of the house. Now, I highly doubt my dad would have cared, but my mom was clearly super offended. She didn't want to talk to me for like a week. It just goes to show how people have been conditioned by government and media to praise soldiers like heroes. It makes sense though, they need to lie to people or else who's gunna fight their wars?

**StonedApe** · 02-01-2010 04:35 AM

Originally Posted by Caprisun

That is the way it has worked for the entire duration of human civilization. Some of histories greatest minds were military leaders, do you honestly think you are better than those men? Don't you think they would have protested war if they thought it was avoidable? There are men who devote their life to studying the philosophy and psychology of war, and they don't presume that war can be ended. There is a separate morality for war, it is a necessary evil. It is something that is built into human psychology, it is something that cannot be overcome by consciousness. There are too many people. If all countries were to lay down arms this very moment, someone, somewhere would eventually take advantage of the situation. A smart man knows this, which is why he would never give up his power in the name of some pipe dream.

A man who grasps after power is a fool. All you have done is assert that war is a necessary part of life. That's a pretty fucking big order, mind explaining? In what way is it necessary for men to dress up uniforms and shoot each other?

Not all societies have used war, therefore it is not necessary for humans to do this to survive. It may be unlikely that we will see an end to war, but that is because we have a very corrupt government.

Do you really think that because we have always fought wars we will always have to? This isn't the way things work. Their is no inherent human nature other than simply existing. We have a culture that glorifies war and thus we continue on fighting like morons.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Yes, we should avoid killing unless we have to. We have very strict rules of engagement, so strict in fact that they endanger the lives of our soldiers. Our rules of engagement are a tactical hinderance that serve no other purpose than to appease people like you. These rules commonly state that we are not allowed to fire unless fired upon. There are cases where the enemy is standing in the open, and we know its the enemy, and we know they are gathering intelligence for the best way to kill us, but we can't do anything about it. The killing in Iraq is initiated by the insurgents, it is therefore necessary for us to kill them. We can't walk away and let these people be, because they WILL follow us home. You and I both know that they won't give up until we either conform to their standards or cease to exist, whichever comes first. Can you not see the necessity of this conflict? Now I will submit that maybe it didn't need to take place in Iraq in particular, but we can't go back it time. I am not crazy enough to believe Islamofacists are going to take over our country, but I'll be damned if Im going to sit around and watch their attacks happen. Where is the justice in that? Maybe if we ignore them they'll go away right?

I completely disagree with this statement. We both know that threats have been made. You assume that those who pose these threats can do what they say, I know they cannot.

Obviously not. Would you mind giving me some concrete reasons, like what would have happened if we didn't and why that would be so bad.

So you really think that we should police the world? I'm sorry, but I gotta now...

Do you not realize that you are projecting your violent attitude onto the world and then saying that violence is an inherent part of life? You only see violence as necessary because you yourself are violent.

**Caprisun** · 02-01-2010 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by stonedape

A man who grasps after power is a fool. All you have done is assert that war is a necessary part of life. That's a pretty fucking big order, mind explaining? In what way is it necessary for men to dress up uniforms and shoot each other?

Not all societies have used war, therefore it is not necessary for humans to do this to survive. It may be unlikely that we will see an end to war, but that is because we have a very corrupt government.

Do you really think that because we have always fought wars we will always have to? This isn't the way things work. Their is no inherent human nature other than simply existing. We have a culture that glorifies war and thus we continue on fighting like morons.

I completely disagree with this statement. We both know that threats have been made. You assume that those who pose these threats can do what they say, I know they cannot.

Obviously not. Would you mind giving me some concrete reasons, like what would have happened if we didn't and why that would be so bad.

So you really think that we should police the world? I'm sorry, but I gotta now...

Do you not realize that you are projecting your violent attitude onto the world and then saying that violence is an inherent part of life? You only see violence as necessary because you yourself are violent.

"A man who grasps after power is a fool. All you have done is assert that war is a necessary part of life. That's a pretty fucking big order, mind explaining? In what way is it necessary for men to dress up uniforms and shoot each other?"

"A man who grasps after power is a fool." Is this you trying to crack an egg of wisdom on my head? Of all the things you have said thus far, this may be the most illogical. I assume you support Obama (forgive me if Im wrong.) Well, is he a fool for running for president? What would the world be like if the brightest and most qualified men thought it was foolish to vie for a position of power where they could truely be a positive influence? The world needs good leaders, but you say it is foolish for them to lead?

"Do you really think that because we have always fought wars we will always have to? This isn't the way things work. Their is no inherent human nature other than simply existing. We have a culture that glorifies war and thus we continue on fighting like morons."

Yes, no matter how many good natured people there are, you can't influence all of them. You can't control everyone. Somebody will inevitably take advatage of the worlds docile nature. I like to compare it to chimpanzees and bonobos. Both are closely related to humans, one is violent while the other is not. We are much more like the chimpanzees, the violent ones. We have psychological constructs that make us prone to violent behavior unless we can control our emotions.

"I completely disagree with this statement. We both know that threats have been made. You assume that those who pose these threats can do what they say, I know they cannot."

There are myriad others. You really disagree with that statement? They are like a gnat in our face, they will continue to bug us. If we don't swat it now, it has to potential to grow into an eagle with razor sharp talons. Or possibly a raging taradactle. It cannot simply be ignored.

"So you really think that we should police the world?"

I never said anything about policing the world.

"Do you not realize that you are projecting your violent attitude onto the world and then saying that violence is an inherent part of life? You only see violence as necessary because you yourself are violent."

You know nothing about me, so don't judge me. It isn't a violent attitude, it is a sensible attitude. Maybe I just have the rare ability to disconnect my emotions from my logical mind.

Originally Posted by cygnus

are you kidding me???

you are familiar with history's "greatest minds" because those were the people whose might suffocated any alternative perspective! you have an incredibly cross-eyed view of what the history of the human condition has been; you have no clue of what "great minds" came before because the cultures which cultivated them were marginalized by the military strategists, unscrupulous leaders and misguided troops who were so backward that their way of life was the only one they could imagine.

Are you kidding me? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? I think your perception of history has been skewed by your bleeding heart. What phantom minds are you talking about? Is there some kind of massive conspiracy to cover up any anti-military attitude? Because I could name a dozen famous scholars off the top of my head who spoke out against war. I don't think any of them actually thought they could end war all together. The fact that you call these men unscrupulous proves to me your ignorance. Some may have been, but the greatest are not.

**cygnus** · 02-01-2010 05:51 AM

Originally Posted by Caprisun

That is the way it has worked for the entire duration of human civilization. Some of histories greatest minds were military leaders, do you honestly think you are better than those men? Don't you think they would have protested war if they thought it was avoidable?

are you kidding me???

you are familiar with history's "greatest minds" because those were the people whose might suffocated any alternative perspective! you have an incredibly cross-eyed view of what the history of the human condition has been; you have no clue of what "great minds" came before because the cultures which cultivated them were marginalized by the military strategists, unscrupulous leaders and misguided troops who were so backward that their way of life was the only one they could imagine.

**cygnus** · 02-01-2010 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by Caprisun

That is the way it has worked for the entire duration of human civilization. Some of histories greatest minds were military leaders, do you honestly think you are better than those men? Don't you think they would have protested war if they thought it was avoidable?

Originally Posted by cygnus

are you kidding me???

you are familiar with history's "greatest minds" because those were the people whose might suffocated any alternative perspective! you have an incredibly cross-eyed view of what the history of the human condition has been; you have no clue of what "great minds" came before because the cultures which cultivated them were marginalized by the military strategists, unscrupulous leaders and misguided troops who were so backward that their way of life was the only one they could imagine.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Are you kidding me? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? I think your perception of history has been skewed by your bleeding heart. What phantom minds are you talking about? Is there some kind of massive conspiracy to cover up any anti-military attitude? Because I could name a dozen famous scholars off the top of my head who spoke out against war. I don't think any of them actually thought they could end war all together. The fact that you call these men unscrupulous proves to me your ignorance. Some may have been, but the greatest are not.

well, i have a good idea of what i'm talking about because i don't have an ethnocentric education of culture or history. all of your arguments against what i've been saying have been an exercise in inflexible thinking and high praise for those whose actions perpetuate a backward and unnatural way of life. my perception of history has been no more "skewed by my bleeding heart" than yours has been warped by those who wrote the books. there is no "massive conspiracy to cover up any anti-military attitude" aside from (as i already hinted at) centuries of marginalization and genocide of those cultures who contradicted your military-centered way of being.

**Caprisun** · 01-31-2010 01:51 AM

Originally Posted by stonedape

What I'm saying is that the military creates imperialism. Without standing armies you can't have imperialism. I think we would be doing more to protect freedom by ending war then

Keep dreaming.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Is it only because they aim it at American soldiers? How about Canadian? Mexican? Australian? Zimbabwean? Italian? Indian? Pakistani? Russian? Japanese? Chinese? Thai? Vietnamese? Cuban? (This was largely rhetorical. I sensed nationalism in you)

The only reason they are "threatening" now is because they're defending themselves from American soldiers dicking around in their homelands. To the country as a whole, they are not threatening.

It doesn't make a difference who they aim at, I said American because we are talking about the American military. And it doesn't matter why they are shooting at us, as long as they are shooting at us we will shoot back. I don't know why you would put threatening in quotation marks, how is that not a threat? The fact is we would not have shot them had they not picked up arms against us, simple as that.

Originally Posted by stonedape

But how is violence the proper answer to this? Should we really stoop to this level of dualistic politics?

It is the only answer.

Originally Posted by Alric

Working in the miliarty for benefits is the same thing as being paid. Benefits is in the same bag as being paid, so it counts.

What I mean is a person who is not desperate does not join for the money. In other words, the military is not a "sweet gig." They join for personal reasons.

**cygnus** · 01-31-2010 01:59 AM

Originally Posted by Caprisun

It is the only answer.

we must drain the excess heat from your blood with these leeches, caprisun. it is the only way to make you well.

**Caprisun** · 01-31-2010 02:07 AM

Originally Posted by cygnus

we must drain the excess heat from your blood with these leeches, caprisun. it is the only way to make you well.

Are you suggesting that we could come to some kind of diplomatic agreement with Al Qaeda? Neither side is willing to compromise their values, it will lead to violent conflict.

**cygnus** · 01-31-2010 02:15 AM

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Are you suggesting that we could come to some kind of diplomatic agreement with Al Qaeda? Neither side is willing to compromise their values, it will lead to violent conflict.

you said it is THE ONLY ANSWER. you can't possibly believe that.