Supporting The Troops Is Supporting The War

[joebudda]

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

Don't get me wrong, I would protect my own rights if they are threatened.

But what gives me the right to determine that I shouldn't be held accountable if I decide to forcibly impose my opinions onto other individuals?

The individuals taking part in the war cause war. So to support the individuals causing the war you are supporting the war.

 

[Futuwwa]

What does "support the troops" actually constitute? How are they supported by you wearing a ribbon proclaiming your support for them?

 

[joebudda]

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 didn’t 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.

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.

 

[joebudda]

What does "support the troops" actually constitute? How are they supported by you wearing a ribbon proclaiming your support for them?

I would be interested in this as well.

 

[Psalms34]

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.

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.
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 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.

Yes, not only without, but within...

 

[CCGirl]

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??!

 

[Psalms34]

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 headquartered outside the nation and infiltrating within.

 

[CCGirl]

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? What does Cuba have to do with the OP? Anyway, it is not a defense, as we found out at Nuremburg,.

 

[Psalms34]

Huh? What does Cuba have to do with the OP? Anyway, it is not a defense, as we found out at Nuremburg,.

Huh? You must have read a different history book, must be one of those progressive and appended sorts of books…

 

[CCGirl]

What are you talking about? Following orders is not a defense, which was established firmly at Nuremburg.

 

[Ryal Kane]

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 reach a point at which there is no longer a war.

Very few of the the people who oppose the Iraq war are suggesting that we abolish the military altogether.

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.

 

[joebudda]

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.

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.

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.

What does this have to do what we are discussing? This seems to be nothing more then a red herring.

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.

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".

 

[joebudda]

Saying the supporting the troops = supporting the Iraq war is like saying supporting the firefighters = supporting the fire.

Only if the fire fighters are the ones causing the fires.

Because would there be fires without the individual firefighters? Would there be wars without the individuals fighting them?

This shows how such an analogy fails.

The goal of any war is to reach a point at which there is no longer a war.

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.

Very few of the the people who oppose the Iraq war are suggesting that we abolish the military altogether.

If individuals can't control their military what should be done?

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.

Giving troops equipment and rest time to better force their will onto other individuals is supporting the war.

This support results in the killing of over 90,000 individual civilians who were deemed not worthy of life. Because an opinion was decided to be more important then their lives.

 

[joebudda]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[jgarden]

I am sick of seeing all of these magnetic ribbons on everyone’s 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.

 

[joebudda]

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.

Do these individuals choose to pick up the "financial burden" or are they forced under threats of punishment? Do these individuals have the freedom to not pick up this "financial burden" if they don't agree with it?

Isn't this just another "group" using coercion to force the support of an opinion onto other individuals?

 

[Lisa0315]

I was thinking about this thread while I was at school tonight.

Your logic is wrong, Joe. If those who fight in the war are the cause of the war, or the source of the war, and they should simply refuse to fight to end the war...

That would mean that no one should ever fight for the rights or freedom of anyone else.

That means that American slavery should have continued until the slaves were able to rise up and earn their own independence.

You are very, very wrong here.

Lisa

 

[KarateCowboy]

No no no JoeBudda you have it all wrong!

You can support our warriors but not the war they fight!

It's like supporting surgeons but not . . . uh . . . surgery.

 

[Douger]

The troops are the troops. They serve the country. We tell them what to do.
The moment "supporting" (read serving) the military in everything it does becomes the status quo, we're screwed.
We're getting tricked into creating our own Spartiate, Legionaries, Jannisaries, Condotierri.

 

[Psalms34]

What are you talking about? Following orders is not a defense, which was established firmly at Nuremburg.

In your progressive, revised and expanded edition history book, how long does it exactly say those trials went on so to put on trial every German soldier? Decades I would think. Oh waaait! Maybe they weren’t all held accountable?? …just following orders? Or were the Germans the good guys then, and just a few rogue cases? …or just following orders?

? So you say don’t support our troops, that they are all guilty and compare them to those that were tried at Nuremberg which were the guys actually giving the orders often from government positions to do crimes that were actual crimes and not like the make-believe crimes that are always tossed in accusation at our troopers.