Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well, since we do not live in a world of idealists like you, it is likely you will only live because someone else will give their life for yours.
Lisa
Soldiers are not individuals, they are units and take orders. It is not in their power to disobey orders, or they are severely punished as individuals. If it didnt work that way, then we would have a military coup which would leave the nation vulnerable to enemies without and within. Soldiers simply follow orders, and you cannot blame them for that, not directly.
What does "support the troops" actually constitute? How are they supported by you wearing a ribbon proclaiming your support for them?
They are individuals. We just convince ourselves of the illusion in order to rid them of responsibility of their own actions. And to punish them is the same thing as war. It is an individual determining that the individual being punished doesn't have individual rights. This is the problem when we get mislead by these collectivist ideals, the individual becomes less important then the opinion.
And leaving a nation vulnerable because they are individuals is a strawman.
You mean as opposed to just executing them like in Cuba, that land of heaven on earth?But following orders is not a defense against illegal acts (like the Iraq war). Do you people honestly believe that they will lock up hundreds of thousands of soldiers who refuse orders??!
You mean as opposed to just executing them like in Cuba, that land of heaven on earth?
Before 100000's of soldiers would do such a thing (what ever the case be), the democratic-republic would have changed the circumstances that lead to such a thing beforehand, to thwart such an outcome. Currently there is no such possible outcome as things are laid, it is only the opinion of a few outside of military ranks. Most of which are influenced by anti-war groups which are heavily influenced and supported by anti-American organizations often outside the nation.
Huh? You must have read a different history book, must be one of those progressive and appended sorts of booksHuh? What does Cuba have to do with the OP? Anyway, it is not a defense, as we found out at Nuremburg,.
Its the illusion of collectivism that is used to control individuals. And it really isn't reality unless some individual behaves as if it is. Which is once again the choice of the individual. And it only makes it reality to that individual until they force that reality onto some other individual through some sort of coercion.They don’t have individual rights. The US military is not about individual rights, it’s about service. Your posts are purely ideological, apart from reality.
What does this have to do what we are discussing? This seems to be nothing more then a red herring.Individual rights is state militia, not federalist military. And then again, even the current state militia system is more like federalist military compared to the origins of the state militias as they were created.
If you understand individualism then you would understand that the individual is responsible for their own "duty", and the actions that individual agrees to do when acting out any "duty".If you don't understand the concepts of individualism vs. duty in a military structure, study the trials in the aftermath of WWII including those that were held blameless.
Only if the fire fighters are the ones causing the fires.Saying the supporting the troops = supporting the Iraq war is like saying supporting the firefighters = supporting the fire.
The "goal" of any war is to force upon individuals power and control. The individuals forcing such methods of control are responsible for their own actions.The goal of any war is to reach a point at which there is no longer a war.
If individuals can't control their military what should be done?Very few of the the people who oppose the Iraq war are suggesting that we abolish the military altogether.
Giving troops equipment and rest time to better force their will onto other individuals is supporting the war.Frankly I think giving troops decent equipment, rest time, and physical and mental health care is supporting them. So far the Bush administration has denied them all these things.
So no, saying that you support the troops but not the war is not hypocrisy.
If people didn't allow such collectivist control, they wouldn't be deceived by the illusion. If everyone decided not to fight the war there would be no war. But individuals decide for themselves to control other individuals with force.Before 100000's of soldiers would do such a thing (what ever the case be), the democratic-republic would have changed the circumstances that lead to such a thing beforehand, to thwart such an outcome. Currently there is no such possible outcome as things are laid, it is only the opinion of a few outside of military ranks.
So it is anti-American to be anti-war? This is nothing more then a collectivist illusion. Trying to cram people into a little box in order to rob them of their individual identity. It is exactly this type of mindset I see to be the problem. The mindset where individuals are less important then an opinion.Most of which are influenced by anti-war groups which are heavily influenced and supported by anti-American organizations often headquartered outside the nation and infiltrating within.
With the president having an approval rating of approximately 30%, it would appear that the vast majority of Americans would qualify, under your definition, as "a bunch of hypocrites."I am sick of seeing all of these magnetic ribbons on everyones car that read support the troops, not the war. These people are a bunch of hypocrites. Because supporting the troops is supporting the war.
War is fought by individuals willing to fight a war. It is fought by individuals willing to kill others by their own actions. If these troops were not supporting the war there would be no war. If these individuals really wanted the war to end they can stop perpetuating the war by their individual actions or lack thereof.
So supporting the troops is supporting the war. If someone supports these individuals killing other individuals they are supporting the killing of individuals, ergo supporting the war. To attempt to justify it boils down to hypocrisy.
If I am not seeing something that shows how this conclusions is incorrect I would appreciate if someone would point out why or how.
With the president having an approval rating of approximately 30%, it would appear that the vast majority of Americans would qualify, under your definition, as "a bunch of hypocrites."
These same "hypocrites" have had to shoulder the majority of the financial burden and endure most of the human tragedy as a consequence of this war.
What are you talking about? Following orders is not a defense, which was established firmly at Nuremburg.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?