It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tired Of The Propaganda - "Support The Troops"

page: 11
53
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah
...other than their presence in the shop as a deterrent. The same applies for the military -- just because they exist outside of active wars doesn't mean the entire force is due credit for actively continuing domestic peace. Make any sense?


So you admit that having a strong, well armed military is a deterrent, right? Therefore, a piddly little nothing military, or no military at all, would invite invasion. You asked what exactly the military was protecting us from. You have just answered that question.

Just the fact that we have a well armed standing army who is capable and willing to engage an enemy is a deterrent to invasion. Without them, you wouldn't be sitting on the computer chatting on ATS at this time. They train and are on the ready to fight and die if necessary to protect us. That fact alone holds the hordes back. The ENTIRE force gets credit for domestic peace. Without the entire force being willing and ready to fight, there would be no America.




posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jainine

originally posted by: Nyiah
...other than their presence in the shop as a deterrent. The same applies for the military -- just because they exist outside of active wars doesn't mean the entire force is due credit for actively continuing domestic peace. Make any sense?


So you admit that having a strong, well armed military is a deterrent, right? Therefore, a piddly little nothing military, or no military at all, would invite invasion. You asked what exactly the military was protecting us from. You have just answered that question.

Just the fact that we have a well armed standing army who is capable and willing to engage an enemy is a deterrent to invasion. Without them, you wouldn't be sitting on the computer chatting on ATS at this time. They train and are on the ready to fight and die if necessary to protect us. That fact alone holds the hordes back. The ENTIRE force gets credit for domestic peace. Without the entire force being willing and ready to fight, there would be no America.



The irony being that people like you around the world that share this attitude is why war exists. If no one felt the need to have a standing military there wouldn't be war.

Idealistic I know but if being anti-war grants me that label so be it.
edit on 12-11-2014 by corvuscorrax because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Jainine

You missed my point. "Strength in numbers/safety in numbers" is not exclusive to the military. I could have easily swapped out cops in my example for a gun club group. They would be an equal deterrent. The military is useful, for specific tactics. Those tactics are not needed 24/7 to protect us, otherwise we'd have no need for people like police officers, security firms, and plain ol' armed populace. If you think you're the country's saving grace when it comes to turmoil, you may have another thing coming some day. As I've said, people will protect their lives & property when called for, not just Joe Soldier.

Your attitude is kind of unnerving, to be honest. Is this how they're teaching you enlisted people to view yourselves versus the civvies now? o.O
edit on 11/12/2014 by Nyiah because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   
N/M /OUT
edit on 11/12/2014 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nyiah
Is this how they're teaching you enlisted people to view yourselves versus the civvies now?

You've confused me with someone else. I'm not in the military. As for your comment about people protecting their lives and property. That's all well and good. But Joe Farmer doesn't have the training or firepower that the military has. We'd be quickly over run by professional armies without our military.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Jainine

But I am! We fight so civilians don't have to. We fight in more ways than one. What Jainine is saying is true. We defend the country from any present or future enemies. If we didn't have the most powerful army then we'd have been taken over a long time ago. There's a reason no one has ever invaded the mainland US. Also since we have the strongest military the UN asks us to intervene in several situations.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

I joined right after 9/11 and felt our freedoms were in danger. Was that not a direct threat in your book? So yes, I did join to protect our freedoms as with the others I served with. Regarding the politicians as our boss and taking your freedoms away. Did you vote? If so, your responsible for giving your freedoms away. Personally, I've never voted, so that's my way of protecting (us) from that. What have you done to protect us from the politicians taking away our freedoms? That's the real question. The average citizen has more power by far to fight against our government, but you blame the military?

This reply was meant for Nyiah
edit on 12-11-2014 by amicktd because: Replied to the wrong poster

edit on 12-11-2014 by amicktd because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

When did I ask for automatic respect? The OP is bashing the government while he sits around and collects a free check from that very same government. All because he doesn't like how this country is based on corporate interests. Then sits back and watches ESPN that we paid for, sponsored by the very corporations he is bitching about. Maybe the OP should slap himself and wake up to reality.
edit on 12-11-2014 by amicktd because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: corvuscorrax

originally posted by: Jainine

originally posted by: Nyiah
...other than their presence in the shop as a deterrent. The same applies for the military -- just because they exist outside of active wars doesn't mean the entire force is due credit for actively continuing domestic peace. Make any sense?


So you admit that having a strong, well armed military is a deterrent, right? Therefore, a piddly little nothing military, or no military at all, would invite invasion. You asked what exactly the military was protecting us from. You have just answered that question.

Just the fact that we have a well armed standing army who is capable and willing to engage an enemy is a deterrent to invasion. Without them, you wouldn't be sitting on the computer chatting on ATS at this time. They train and are on the ready to fight and die if necessary to protect us. That fact alone holds the hordes back. The ENTIRE force gets credit for domestic peace. Without the entire force being willing and ready to fight, there would be no America.



The irony being that people like you around the world that share this attitude is why war exists. If no one felt the need to have a standing military there wouldn't be war.

Idealistic I know but if being anti-war grants me that label so be it.


Wars do not exist because of standing armies. Standing armies exist because wars happen. Ever since the first cave man chucked a rock at another to take his kill away from him, there has been war. There will always be genocidal and dictatorial jerks and there will always be war. History clearly demonstrates that it is strength that deters war, not weakness.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: amicktd
I would suggest re reading the first and last sentence of your post I replied to. Intended or not it comes across as an arrogant believe that military service is deserving of automatic respect.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Maybe you should read my entire post and not use 2 sentences to take it out of context.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: amicktd
Since the rest of your post is just a personal attack on spanisharcher not sure how it changes the context.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Exactly, so where did you get that I think all soldiers deserve automatic respect. I replied to the OP in the same manner that he addressed the armed forces. With pure bias, negativity, and zero sources. Have a great day, the thread has died.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

Wars happen when polioticians/diplomats fail at their job.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: corvuscorrax

originally posted by: Jainine

originally posted by: Nyiah
...other than their presence in the shop as a deterrent. The same applies for the military -- just because they exist outside of active wars doesn't mean the entire force is due credit for actively continuing domestic peace. Make any sense?


So you admit that having a strong, well armed military is a deterrent, right? Therefore, a piddly little nothing military, or no military at all, would invite invasion. You asked what exactly the military was protecting us from. You have just answered that question.

Just the fact that we have a well armed standing army who is capable and willing to engage an enemy is a deterrent to invasion. Without them, you wouldn't be sitting on the computer chatting on ATS at this time. They train and are on the ready to fight and die if necessary to protect us. That fact alone holds the hordes back. The ENTIRE force gets credit for domestic peace. Without the entire force being willing and ready to fight, there would be no America.



The irony being that people like you around the world that share this attitude is why war exists. If no one felt the need to have a standing military there wouldn't be war.

Idealistic I know but if being anti-war grants me that label so be it.


History clearly demonstrates that it is strength that deters war, not weakness.


Not it doesn't. World War One happened precisely because the 'opposing' sides build for it. It was inevitable because of the preparations.

Preparing for war, factories for war, businesses that gear up for war need war, or they fail.
Thats the problem with trained, strong standing armies, besides being bored, they incite other countries to also prepare for war making each other suspicious and nervous about war which generates more war preparations to counter.

Look around, see where were at. Has preparing for war made the world safer or more dangerous?



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TheSpanishArcher

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

S. G. Tallentyre, (pseudonym of Evelyn Beatrice Hall) in referring to Voltaire. Often attributed to Voltaire.

I like others here have served, and this sums up where I stand! Viet Nam was a long time ago which was where I started, but I will stand and defend your rights today. A thank you is nice for us even though I never expected one, and never received one after those days, but in your case I'd refuse yours.

I always find it ironic that those who write and say such refuse to stand.

And yes I know exactly what the governments are doing and have done. I still love my country and will stand up for it.




edit on 12/11/2014 by LamontCranston because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: TheSpanishArcher

Those unwilling to sacrifice their lives for something greater will never understand.

I'm sure someone else has touched on this by now, but no one is asking you to do a damn thing, but get your damn story straight before ranting ignorantly. Soldiers don't choose where to go, when to go, or why to go. They sign up--most because they want to be a part of protecting our constitution from foreign or domestic enemies--and then are ordered to do whatever the congress and president in power decide.

If you want to continue bitching and whining, direct it at the proper source, because you may be surprised to know that many Service Members are not happy about where they are and why they're there. But unlike whiny little bitches on the internet, they do what they have to do and know who to blame as to why they're there. Most these days complete their initial enlistment and get out, and it's often because they disapprove as to what the military is being used for in this world (along with how they are treated by people like you and government once they return from deployments).

So, seriously, pull your head out of your ass and realize who you should really be blaming. If anything, you should support the troops knowing that they are places that they really don't want to be for reasons that many don't agree with.

Or just keeping being an asinine jackass. Your call.



posted on Nov, 12 2014 @ 09:38 PM
link   
I started saying this over a decade ago. Back then it wasn't popular.

I still say it today, and t has been relevant since our incursion into Vietnam.

SUPPORT THE TROOPS....BRING THEM HOME!



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 12:28 AM
link   
I looked around to see what other people have said.

www.salon.com...


It tells us, first of all, that corporations care far less about the individuals who happen to have served in the military than they do about “the troops” as an exploitable consumer category. Unthinking patriotism, exemplified by support of the troops (however insincere or self-serving), is an asset to the modern business model, not simply for good P.R., but also for the profit it generates.

Multinational corporations have a profound interest in cheerleading for war and in the deification of those sent to execute it. For many of these corporations, the U.S. military is essentially a private army dispatched around the world as needed to protect their investments and to open new markets. Their customers may “support our troops” based on sincere feelings of sympathy or camaraderie, but for the elite the task of an ideal citizenry isn’t to analyze or to investigate, but to consume. In order for the citizenry to consume an abundance of products most people don’t actually need, it is necessary to interject the spoils of international larceny into the marketplace.

“Support the troops” is the most overused platitude in the United States, but still the most effective for anybody who seeks interpersonal or economic ingratiation. The platitude abounds with significance but lacks the burdens of substance and specificity. It says something apparently apolitical while patrolling for heresy to an inelastic logic. Its only concrete function is to situate users into normative spaces.

Clichés aren’t usually meant to be analyzed, but this one illuminates imperialism so succinctly that to think seriously about it is to necessarily assess jingoism, foreign policy, and national identity. The sheer vacuity and inexplicability of the phrase, despite its ubiquity, indicates just how incoherent patriotism is these days.

Who, for instance, are “the troops”? Do they include those safely on bases in Hawaii and Germany? Those guarding and torturing prisoners at Bagram and Guantánamo? The ones who murder people by remote control? The legions of mercenaries in Iraq? The ones I’ve seen many times in the Arab world acting like an Adam Sandler character? “The troops” traverse vast sociological, geographical, economic and ideological categories. It does neither military personnel nor their fans any good to romanticize them as a singular organism.

And what, exactly, constitutes “support”? Is it financial giving? Affixing a declarative sticker to a car bumper? Posting banalities to Facebook? Clapping when the flight attendant requests applause?


en.wikipedia.org...

Noam Chomsky


[...] the point of public relations slogans like "Support Our Troops" is that they don't mean anything [...] that's the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody is going to be against and I suppose everybody will be for, because nobody knows what it means, because it doesn't mean anything. But its crucial value is that it diverts your attention from a question that does mean something, do you support our policy? And that's the one you're not allowed to talk about


How about Michael Moore, whom oddly enough I rarely agree with but cannot find any fault in this article. I wish I could put it all up here it's that good.

readersupportednews.org...



I don't "support the troops" or any of those other hollow and hypocritical platitudes uttered by Republicans and frightened Democrats. Here's what I do support: I support them coming home. I support them being treated well. I support peace, and I beg any young person reading this who's thinking of joining the armed forces to please reconsider. Our war department has done little to show you they won't recklessly put your young life in harm's way for a cause that has nothing to do with what you signed up for. They will not help you once they've used you and spit you back into society. If you're a woman, they will not protect you from rapists in their ranks. And because you have a conscience and you know right from wrong, you do not want yourself being used to kill civilians in other countries who never did anything to hurt us. We are currently involved in at least a half-dozen military actions around the world. Don't become the next statistic so that General Electric can post another record profit - while paying no taxes - taxes that otherwise would be paying for the artificial leg that they've kept you waiting for months to receive.

I support you, and will try to do more to be there for you. And the best way you can support me - and the ideals our country says it believes in - is to get out of the military as soon as you can and never look back.

And please, next time some "supporter of the troops" says to you with that concerned look on their face, "I thank you for your service," you have my permission to punch their lights out (figuratively speaking, of course)


Or Lew Rockwell back when this crap started.

www.lewrockwell.com...


"Support the troops" as a propaganda slogan didn’t make any more sense back in the Sixties than it does now. Those who wanted that pointless war to continue and therefore were willing to tolerate more troops dying were "supporting the troops." Those who wanted the war to end and wanted to save the lives of the troops were not "supporting the troops." Makes you wonder which side was really smoking too much marijuana back then.


dissidentvoice.org...


Of course, along with “support our troops” there is an implicit “support our torturers and higher level war criminals.” This flows from the overwhelming and increasingly centralized power in the hands of the dominant elite, including the military-industrial complex (MIC) and leading politicians, and an associated remarkable level of self-righteousness. Anything we do is tolerable because we are not only strong and the global policeman, but also good and always well-intentioned, and are therefore not to be questioned when we do abroad precisely what we condemn in target states. We can support Saddam Hussein and even provide him with “weapons of mass destruction”, when he is doing us a service in attacking Iran, even when he is using chemical weapons there; and with no seeming sense of shame or guilt we can quickly turn him into “another Hitler” when he disobeys orders. We can help the Shah of Iran build a nuclear capability, but threaten war when his successor regime tries to do what was encouraged with the Shah; and again, with utter self-righteousness. It testifies to the greatness of the Western propaganda system that these shifts and mind-boggling double standards can occur without the slightest pause or recognition or any need for explanation or apology.


original.antiwar.com...


"There are no more good men left here." Of course there aren’t. What kind of person joins the military at this particular point in time – a point when the US is engaged in endless wars of aggression, and stories of atrocities committed by "our" soldiers are coming out all the time? For the most part, precisely the kind of person who would delight in the orgy of bloodlust conducted by the "thrill kill platoon." The military has become an outlet for the sociopaths in our midst. Yes, I know, with the recession people will be joining for economic reasons: after all, where else can they find a job?



posted on Nov, 13 2014 @ 12:43 AM
link   
I took a few minutes in between cashing my welfare checks and watching some sports. Came up with that last post.
What I should have done in the first place, which really was my intention until I turned it into more of a rant than trying to take a look at the propaganda side of it. Hence why I put propaganda in the title, I just failed with my OP.

Smarter people than me have written much the same as I have in this thread. They may be few and far between but they are there.







 
53
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join