Thread: "support the troops"

Well, Khun Milkman, (as long as we're being civil here)lol - for every stroke of the broad brush there are exceptions. As I've posted before, my wife & I have friends who are solidly middle-class with a son attending West Point & who's goal upon graduation is Iraq and the War on Terror.

Concur that the majority of military are most probably from the less-advantaged in terms of monetary means but the point remains - they all deserve dignity and respect which seems to be lacking in yours and especially surasak's posts.

I know people who went to Annapolis and West Point.

I knew folks that were middle class and joined.

You and I agree that "most" means more than 50%.

There are two Americas, and one of them is defending the other. Military recruiting stays strong...

There never was a dip in military recruiting because of the Iraq war (or other campaigns, e.g. Afghanistan.)

The chances of injury is low. Getting killed, even lower. Less than 1%.

The military still offers training, travel, a chance to learn skills, get out of a small hometown etc.

The military has studied recruiting like a science.

As difficult as the 'quality' job market is, it's still seems like a good option for training, and using the G.I. Bill. Even though the G.I. Bill has fallen way behind the increases in tuition and other education costs in recent years.

Is someone defending something? Not at all, IMO.

It's good for nationalism, and companies that contract business with the military.

boonie

even if the numbers cited in the blog you linked to are tenably accurate (why should i spend the time to click through to a reactionary blogger?), the fact remains that the military is now recruiting older, less intelligent poor people with longer rap sheets.

Originally Posted by Milkman

The military has studied recruiting like a science.

and how to disperse bag loads of cash to poor people so they sign on the bottom line.

Originally Posted by Milkman

It's good for nationalism

but what is nationalism good for?

Originally Posted by raycarey

boonie

even if the numbers cited in the blog you linked to are tenably accurate (why should i spend the time to click through to a reactionary blogger?), the fact remains that the military is now recruiting older, less intelligent poor people with longer rap sheets.

Originally Posted by Milkman

The military has studied recruiting like a science.

Raycarey:

and how to disperse bag loads of cash to poor people so they sign on the bottom line.

Agree completely. The target or them is young ones that can benefit from what they have to offer. Focus on certain areas, and demographics. There is always a steady supply and people like popping out kids. The best recruits are young, apolitical, and poorly read. Their minds are easier to mold that way, and they lack critical thinking skills at such a young age (18-23). I didn't start thinking critically on a regular basis (I think) until my late 20s. Years after I finished Uni.

Originally Posted by Milkman

It's good for nationalism

Raycarey:

but what is nationalism good for?

I was being sarcastic. I think nationalism and jingoism is very negative.

Originally Posted by raycarey

but what is nationalism good for?

For starters, it's good for 'winning'?

You ever play sports there, ray?

You ever want to 'win'?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

For starters, it's good for 'winning'?

for starters, is that a question for me?

but let's assume you're using a question to mark sarcasm. but if it is or isn't--i have the same question---how is nationalism good for winning?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

You ever play sports there, ray?

my entire life---up to the present day. how about you, old timer?

and i've always found the playing of the 'national anthemn' before sporting events to be a waste of time, and pathetic.

and as far as the olympics and any other international sports competition is concerned, i watch for the performance---i don't root for a particular delineated geographic region on a map.

USA! USA! USA!

how embarrassing you all are.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

You ever want to 'win'?

what's your point? are you drunk? is it that 'winning' is somehow related to nationalism? are you trying to make a point about iraq? if so, the iranians and the chinese already won in iraq.

but let's get back on topic....'supporting the troops'---whatever that means.

fuck the troops.....more iraqis are dying because they're in iraq. the sooner more die in a horrific spectacle, the sooner the US will begin their inevitable withdrawal.

it's over...the US lost....badly.

“Nationalism is our form of incest, is our idolatry, is our insanity. ''Patriotism'' is its cult. It should hardly be necessary to say, that by ''patriotism'' I mean that attitude which puts the own nation above humanity, above the principles of truth and justice; not the loving interest in one's own nation, which is the concern with the nation's spiritual as much as with its material welfare /never with its power over other nations. Just as love for one individual which excludes the love for others is not love, love for one's country which is not part of one's love for humanity is not love, but idolatrous worship.”

Erich Fromm

Originally Posted by surasak

I don't have sympathy for any of them because they are all volunteers.

It's not as if they are somewhere defending the homeland. They are part of an illegal occupation, and, as such I give them no quarter when it comes to supporting what they do.

Whether or not you agree with the occupation of Iraq is not the question. You and I, as voters, have elected politicans who have made that decision.

A solider is not a volunteer to a cause of a politican. A solider is paid to do a job. That job is to defend our nation - regardless of who may be in power. The person who makes the call of what is good for our nation is some two bit piece of shit who didn't even have the courage to stand up and be counted when his time was called.

No one "volunteered" to be in Iraq, bar Bush and his motley crew.

Originally Posted by surasak

All prior wars had a draft.

I believe this is an incomplete sentence. All prior wars had a draft after it was realized that the standing force was insufficient to cover the operation area.

Also, did Grenada have a draft?

[quote=William;310608]

Originally Posted by surasak

A solider is not a volunteer to a cause of a politican. A solider is paid to do a job. That job is to defend our nation - regardless of who may be in power.

The problem,

is that in the U.S., the American military has not defended America for over 100 years.

The soldier has only worked to expand the foreign policy interests of the United States since the mid-1800s, and even before that time period is debatable.

The soldier does not defend us. The soldier is a poorly paid tool of the economic interests of a few.

The soldiers usually isn't aware of this, and neither is the public.

^sorry, but that's bullshit.

Yes, it is possible to be a member of an American family and to have had a member(s) of that family serve in every conflict since the Civil War.

But, people are aware of this. Thus, a solider's trust is that you and I, as voters, will not put him in uncessary harm's way and will act as guardians to safe-guard their (and our national) interests.

However, when you and I vote people in to power who do not realise this, we let them down.

Originally Posted by William

^sorry, but that's bullshit.

Be specific. It will support your argument.

Yes, it is possible to be a member of an American family and to have had a member(s) of that family serve in every conflict since the Civil War.

I never noted the Civil War. That was not about defending the nation at all, IMO.

But, people are aware of this. Thus, a solider's trust is that you and I, as voters, will not put him in uncessary harm's way and will act as guardians to safe-guard their (and our national) interests.

However, when you and I vote people in to power who do not realise this, we let them down.

The "soldier" is a bureaucrat with boots on. Not paid to think. Paid to follow orders.

The best soldier is apolitical.

Check out Robert Kagan's "Dangerous Nation."

^ Nice quote Stroller.

I'd like to add another book: Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq. --By Stephen Kinzer.

Why did the U.S. overthrow Hawaii, occupy it, and overtake it?

Because American sugar cane farmers got angry with the Hawaiin queen for wanting a bigger and more fair compensation for the sugar cane grown in Hawaii.

The U.S. Marines landed on the shores of Hawaii over this....and the rest is....history.

Like the Chiquita banana companies in Guatemala that overthrew a democratically elected President, Arbenz. Hence the term, "banana republic" was born.

It isn't about the "soldier."

Originally Posted by stroller

Thus, a solider's trust is that you and I, as voters, will not put him in uncessary harm's way and will act as guardians to safe-guard their (and our national) interests.

What about those who did not vote for the pres, or did not vote at all, which together constitute the majority of Americans? Any soldier relying on the public for support or 'guarding' is a complete fool.

Look at what's happening to soldiers after the war: there are still psychotic 'nam vets about who never got any attention or treatment when the war was over, for example.

"After a war, a hero is just a man with one leg."
—Anonymous

Not true. The asisstence is there. I know a viet vet who receives $2000 a month for life because of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. He also helps his buddies to get through the bureaucratic maze to receive their monthly checks too. I know others who have turned their group therapy sessions into fishing trips instead. They are doing well enough.

Originally Posted by raycarey

my entire life---up to the present day.

Any Team Sports there ray?
You still don't get it do you...

here's a hint - seen the movie "300" have you?

Originally Posted by Milkman

the American military has not defended America for over 100 years.

Revisionist history again - forget about Pearl Harbor did you?
Hawaii was a territory of the US back then...

...not to mention the PI...

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Originally Posted by Milkman

the American military has not defended America for over 100 years.

Revisionist history again - forget about Pearl Harbor did you?
Hawaii was a territory of the US back then...

...not to mention the PI...

The Pearl Harbour attack was known about before hand, IMO.

Why did the Japanese attack Pearl Harbour?


OIL.


Why did that Japanese go to the Philippines in the first place?

The protect their oil route, which they needed so badly.

After the Battle of Leyte Gulf, the U.S. was able to cut off their oil route.


Pearl Harbor was an island base far, far, away from the continental U.S.

Originally Posted by William

Originally Posted by surasak

I don't have sympathy for any of them because they are all volunteers.

It's not as if they are somewhere defending the homeland. They are part of an illegal occupation, and, as such I give them no quarter when it comes to supporting what they do.

Whether or not you agree with the occupation of Iraq is not the question. You and I, as voters, have elected politicans who have made that decision.

A solider is not a volunteer to a cause of a politican. A solider is paid to do a job. That job is to defend our nation - regardless of who may be in power. The person who makes the call of what is good for our nation is some two bit piece of shit who didn't even have the courage to stand up and be counted when his time was called.

No one "volunteered" to be in Iraq, bar Bush and his motley crew.

The assumption here (and as shown by U.S. military recruiters' data) is that due to the effects of 9-11 recruitment and retainment of soldiers was aided by a desire to 'make a difference' through fighting the 'war on terror.'

The question in my mind, and, perhaps I didn't make it clear enough: if someone volunteers to go to Iraq and/or volunteers to join to 'go kick some raghead butt' should we then have any sympathy for said person when things go wrong? Should I sympathize with my racist brother-in-law from New Hampshire who steps on an IED because he volunteered to go to Iraq to kill 'some fucking Arabs?'

I don't sympathize with those who volunteered to serve in Iraq. I would, however, sympathize a bit with those who were sent there and had no choice.

Originally Posted by stroller

"Nationalism" aids "winning" in that the subjects infected with it believe their nation's cause to be the right one, thus "supporting the troops" in words and actions, moral boosting, allocating more funds.
Nationalist are prepared to put aside morality and critical thinking, specially during times of war.

Nationalism is a disease. And the worst part about it? It prevents us from removing Bush from office.

"To impeach Bush would force us to directly confront our national core of violent self-righteousness."

In other words, if we impeach Bush, then we admit to the world that we a massive failure.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/...2/impeachment/

Originally Posted by surasak

Nationalism is a disease.

apparently you haven't seen the movie '300' either.

^
Haven't answered the other question.
How 'bout any team sports there ray?

Originally Posted by Milkman

]
The Pearl Harbour attack was known about before hand, IMO.

Another conspiracy theorist.
Show some evidence that the attack on Pearl Harbor was 'known' in advance...