Thread: F**k the Troops

Originally Posted by stonedape

He wasn't talking about defending himself. He said he would go out and eliminate every hostile force. It's only self defense if they attack first.

but that quote sure seems to suggest even then you shouldnt fight back, lest you become monsters....

Originally Posted by tkdyo

but that quote sure seems to suggest even then you shouldnt fight back, lest you become monsters....

You could read it that way, but I was quoting in response to seeking out "hostile forces".

I agree, if we supported the troops we wouldnt send them to die or to kill for reasons that arent merited. WAKE UP

'When men hire themselves out to shoot other men to order, asking nothing about the justice of their cause, I don't care if they are shot themselves.' - Herbert Spencer.

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

If the United States were so concerned over protecting themselves, wouldn't it make sense to build a strong defense instead of spreading its army over the entire world?

I'm probably a wee bit late in replying to this, and I don't really want to get too deep into this debate, but...my answer to this is "not necessarily".

It kills me to have to make a biology analogy, but...is spreading out and "stationing" one's forces in multiple areas not the very same tactic that viruses use? Viruses spread to different parts of the body rather than clump together and "make a stand" at one concentrated point. If they spread out, the body's immune system can only handle so much in any given area; by the time your white blood cells are finished forcing apoptosis upon infected cells in one area of the body, the virus has already taken its toll in countless other places.

Granted, humans themselves aren't exactly viruses, but the principle is vaguely similar. The fact that America has bits and pieces of itself scattered across the world helps to ensure that its position is secured. Someone said earlier that the U.S. could reduce its military size by about 20% and still maintain its dominance. Why not spread that extra 20% around elsewhere just to be dead certain that nobody tries to pull a fast one on us? I'm not really a war tactician, but it makes plenty of sense to me.

Anyway, there's my two cents on the matter. Have fun.

Originally Posted by Lëzen

I'm probably a wee bit late in replying to this, and I don't really want to get too deep into this debate, but...my answer to this is "not necessarily".

It kills me to have to make a biology analogy, but...is spreading out and "stationing" one's forces in multiple areas not the very same tactic that viruses use? Viruses spread to different parts of the body rather than clump together and "make a stand" at one concentrated point. If they spread out, the body's immune system can only handle so much in any given area; by the time your white blood cells are finished forcing apoptosis upon infected cells in one area of the body, the virus has already taken its toll in countless other places.

Granted, humans themselves aren't exactly viruses, but the principle is vaguely similar. The fact that America has bits and pieces of itself scattered across the world helps to ensure that its position is secured. Someone said earlier that the U.S. could reduce its military size by about 20% and still maintain its dominance. Why not spread that extra 20% around elsewhere just to be dead certain that nobody tries to pull a fast one on us? I'm not really a war tactician, but it makes plenty of sense to me.

Anyway, there's my two cents on the matter. Have fun.

War is like a virus eating away at our society.

Originally Posted by Lëzen

I'm probably a wee bit late in replying to this, and I don't really want to get too deep into this debate, but...my answer to this is "not necessarily".

It kills me to have to make a biology analogy, but...is spreading out and "stationing" one's forces in multiple areas not the very same tactic that viruses use? Viruses spread to different parts of the body rather than clump together and "make a stand" at one concentrated point. If they spread out, the body's immune system can only handle so much in any given area; by the time your white blood cells are finished forcing apoptosis upon infected cells in one area of the body, the virus has already taken its toll in countless other places.

Granted, humans themselves aren't exactly viruses, but the principle is vaguely similar. The fact that America has bits and pieces of itself scattered across the world helps to ensure that its position is secured. Someone said earlier that the U.S. could reduce its military size by about 20% and still maintain its dominance. Why not spread that extra 20% around elsewhere just to be dead certain that nobody tries to pull a fast one on us? I'm not really a war tactician, but it makes plenty of sense to me.

Anyway, there's my two cents on the matter. Have fun.

Bits and pieces? The U.S. has 700 military bases around the world!

Originally Posted by stonedape

War is like a virus eating away at our society.

Not really.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Not really.

So our culture isn't violent then?

Originally Posted by stonedape

So our culture isn't violent then?

It's very violent.

Originally Posted by stonedape

So our culture isn't violent then?

Well 'culture' isn't an entity capable of action. I take it you meant it in a shorthanded fashion in saying something like 'there are a lot of violent individuals in our midst.' But even this I think would be incorrect. I think the majority of people are rather peaceful [ hence why you don't see astronomical numbers in violent crimes ] and I also think that the centralization of power [ namely the state apparatus ] exacerbates the violence of a minority of individuals. Their violence makes larger ripples in the water so to speak.

I meant that our culture(music, movies and video games for example) is full of violence. {Will add Kurt Vonnegut refrence when I find it.} War ripples out into our culture.

I mean that people are basically enculturated to think that war is ok or necessary. They are taught to support the troops because they are necessary for your protection. I don't think that this is necessarily true. Personally, I see this as a way for a coercive monoply to stay in power.

Originally Posted by stonedape

I meant that our culture(music, movies and video games for example) is full of violence. {Will add Kurt Vonnegut refrence when I find it.} War ripples out into our culture.

I mean that people are basically enculturated to think that war is ok or necessary. They are taught to support the troops because they are necessary for your protection. I don't think that this is necessarily true. Personally, I see this as a way for a coercive monoply to stay in power.

What difference does it make if our culture romanticizes war? It's nothing new. Maybe our culture is just a reflection of our true nature rather than a deliberate attempt to control people? I've spent the last 7 pages trying to explain why militaries are necessary. Are you not reading anything I write?

Originally Posted by stonedape

I meant that our culture(music, movies and video games for example) is full of violence. {Will add Kurt Vonnegut refrence when I find it.} War ripples out into our culture.

Well there are violent games and movies out there but that doesn't infer that everyone watches them.

Originally Posted by stonedape

I mean that people are basically enculturated to think that war is ok or necessary. They are taught to support the troops because they are necessary for your protection. I don't think that this is necessarily true. Personally, I see this as a way for a coercive monoply to stay in power.

I absolutely agree but this is just basic state propaganda to rally individuals to fight THEIR wars. Some believe it, some don't. There is a rather large anti-war movement in the US though the problem is that if you are not in control of government your ideas don't matter due to the asymmetry of power. I always give the link to the War Prayer to these warmongering cretins. It's pretty effective.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

What difference does it make if our culture romanticizes war? It's nothing new.

A very big difference. You can't be a Spartan abroad and a Athenian at home.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

A very big difference. You can't be a Spartan abroad and a Athenian at home.

The difference I was referring to was how the glorification of war effects the necessity of a force.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

The difference I was referring to was how the glorification of war effects the necessity of a force.

What exactly do you mean by that?

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

What exactly do you mean by that?

There can be no complete end to war, which means it will always be necessary to maintain a force (a military.) Our culture and the glorification of war, or protest for that matter, has no effect on this universal truth. Stonedape is arguing that our cultures glorification of war is brainwashing the citizens of the world into believing war is good or necessary, and that we could theoretically end war by not glorifying it. He sees it as deliberate manipulation of the people by the government. He is wrong.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Stonedape is arguing that our cultures glorification of war is brainwashing the citizens of the world into believing war is good or necessary, and that we could theoretically end war by not glorifying it. He sees it as deliberate manipulation of the people by the government. He is wrong.

No I think he is trying to say that citizens are brainwashed into thinking ALL wars are necessary and good like the Iraq war. War is never 'good' but defense is necessary. Iraq is not necessary nor is it good.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

No I think he is trying to say that citizens are brainwashed into thinking ALL wars are necessary and good like the Iraq war. War is never 'good' but defense is necessary. Iraq is not necessary nor is it good.

Stoneape has made it clear that he believes militaries should be abolished all together, that means no defensive force. And the necessesity of Iraq is debatable I think. Is it necessary? Possibly, I'm a little torn on certain aspects of that issue. Is it good? We don't know yet, it depends on how it turns out. It has the potential to be great.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Stoneape has made it clear that he believes militaries should be abolished all together, that means no defensive force. And the necessesity of Iraq is debatable I think. Is it necessary? Possibly, I'm a little torn on certain aspects of that issue. Is it good? We don't know yet, it depends on how it turns out. It has the potential to be great.

Well did you ask him if people could still formulate militias? I would like to see the US military abolished but people could still band together to form militias or corporations who contract out protection services. Privatizing the security market.

Earlier in the thread I said that I was OK with militias. I'm also fine with privatized security.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well did you ask him if people could still formulate militias? I would like to see the US military abolished but people could still band together to form militias or corporations who contract out protection services. Privatizing the security market.

Militias are insufficient as a defensive force for a large nation, especially in the modern world. You need a military. Private military contractors would be no more useful than militias for this purpose.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Militias are insufficient as a defensive force for a large nation, especially in the modern world. You need a military. Private military contractors would be no more useful than militias for this purpose.

Well that is your impression and I think it outdated.