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.
Originally posted by badmedia
The only way to "support the troops" is to bring them home. Aside from that, you are merely paying tribute to them. Nothing you are doing is actually helping them get back to their families.
Originally posted by pieman
the punishment for desertion is meaningless IMHO, the point is, there is a choice for people if they don't want to over to whatever crazy conflict they're being deployed to. war or a military prison, that's a choice. taking the easy route is not good enough. besides, like i say, they've no excuse for being ignorant to what they're signing up to do in the first place.
the war continues because the troops are there to allow a continuation, every soldier that chooses to go to iraq is helping to continue an illegal war. if you support the troops, you support their decision to continue the illegal war. if you support their decision to continue the illegal war, you support the war.
because there is no draft, support for troops is support for the war. if i am incorrect point to the flaw in my logic.
there's no point in hand wringing on this issue, there is no half measures, either, the war is right or it is wrong, one or the other. either the troops are facilitators of an illegal action or they are not. they are either the tools of oppression or they are not.
this is not WW2, it is not honorable to fight this war, this war is one of invasion and imposition. it is a dishonorable war and it is dishonorable to participate in it. the honorable thing to do is to object. the troops that choose prison or death before dishonor, those are the troops i'll support.
Originally posted by Jenna
Maybe it's just me, but the punishment and dishonor that comes from desertion is not meaningless. And it's not much of a choice, there is no easy route. Did all the troops who were called back or prevented from obtaining their discharge choose it? I don't think they did.
That, to me anyway, makes as much sense as saying if I eat doughnuts, I support everyone eating doughnuts. If I support everyone eating doughnuts, I support their decision to be massively obese. If I support them being massively obese, I support obesity.
yes, they did.
And again I say, they did not make a decision to go to war, legal or not.
hitler joined the military, did that automatically mean he deserved support? what about those nazis turning the knobs in the gas chambers, did they deserve support? were they honorable by default? how about the guys in the ss? militery service is not honorable by default, honerable military service is honorable.
They decided to join the military, which in my mind is an honorable thing that deserves respect not derision.
in what way are they protecting the country? if what way can anyone joining the american military today expect to protect the country?
They chose to join and take a chance at being called up and sent to war. They didn't join for their health, they joined to protect our country.
it is their fault that they allow themselves to be used. we are each responcible for our own actions, "i was just following orders" doesn't wash with me.
It is not their fault that the government uses that to send them off to fight a war.
in what way is america stopping this from happening? the military freely admit that they don't have the numbers to act as a police force. the protection of iraqi civilians is not part of the mission. forget that rationale, its just not true.
As I said, there is no honor in running away. The war is wrong, we shouldn't be there. But we are and there is no honor in leaving innocent people in the hands of insurgents and crazies who will kill them for the slightest perceived wrong.
unlike an inanimate gun, these soldiers each have a mind of their own.
One thing I need you to explain to me though, is if the troops are merely a tool used by the government for oppression as you call it, why are you blaming the tools?
Originally posted by pieman
if there is an alternative, they have a choice. i really can't make my point any simpler. what exactly do you not understand? they made a choice.
then i suggest that you have misunderstood the remark. support for someone who chooses to kill is support for the killing. that is why there is a charge of accessory to murder.
yes, they did.
And again I say, they did not make a decision to go to war, legal or not.
hitler joined the military, did that automatically mean he deserved support? what about those nazis turning the knobs in the gas chambers, did they deserve support? were they honorable by default? how about the guys in the ss? militery service is not honorable by default, honerable military service is honorable.
in what way are they protecting the country? if what way can anyone joining the american military today expect to protect the country?
it is their fault that they allow themselves to be used. we are each responcible for our own actions, "i was just following orders" doesn't wash with me.
in what way is america stopping this from happening? the military freely admit that they don't have the numbers to act as a police force. the protection of iraqi civilians is not part of the mission. forget that rationale, its just not true.
unlike an inanimate gun, these soldiers each have a mind of their own.
Originally posted by Alethia
Support the troops is nothing but a PR stunt to keep nay-sayers quiet. The government doesn't support the troops, if they did, they would have the right equipment to do the job, the right maps to know where they are and where they are going, and the right to disagree with the war and not face imprisonment for saying so. The government shows scant support for the troops, they don't even allow their returning deceased soldiers to be shown on TV, they pretend they don't exist, what kind of support is that?
The word "support" means to serve as a foundation for, or maintain, sustain, assist or advocate something. You can not, by definition, support the troops but be against the war because the troops are conducting the war, and therefore support for the troops serves as the foundation for war, maintains the war, sustains the war, advocates the war, and assists the war. If there were no troops there would be no war. That is why the government and pro-war people castigate anyone and promote this idea of at least supporting the troops, because without there would be no war.
Can we admire the troops? Not really, I can't admire someone for helping to maintain a war that should not have happened, sense of duty or not. If a soldier was ordered to jump in front of a bus should he do it? He's been ordered to, so therefore he must right? A soldier must follow orders? No, we all have freewill and sense of right or wrong and can express it anytime we want, soldier or not.
If you don't want the war, don't support the troops, you'll get them home far quicker that way.
Originally posted by Jenna
If the choices are potentially being shot or blown up and killed if they go, or potentially getting the death sentence if they desert how is that a choice?
And supporting someone's choice to gorge themselves on doughnuts and overeat is support for the resulting obesity.
so slight as to be a non issue. joining the military while it is engaged in two illegal wars pretty much ensures you are going to participate in one of them.
No, they decided to join the military. Slight difference there.
fine, replace support with respect every time i said it, my point is still valid.
I didn't say they deserved support for joining, I said they deserve respect.
They are not mindless robots, and while they can refuse an unlawful order, it doesn't happen often because they aren't often given unlawful orders. They practically have to be shot before they can even attempt to do anything.
probably not, which is why i also used the guy turning the taps on a gas chamber or a guy in the ss, those are both fair comparisons. they both carried out domestically lawful orders that were morally wrong. i do not respect them for doing so. they did not deserve support.
And Hitler is hardly a fair comparison to the average person who joins the military.
Your anger and frustration is misplaced. Take it up with the government instead of blaming it on the military when they didn't make this decision.
These people that you look down on are doing what they think is right given the situation they have been placed in.
the insurgents as you refer to them don't go around killing everyone in the areas they control. the insurgents are mostly iraqis. have you been living under a rock with a tv permanently tuned to fox or what?
We are there fighting alongside Iraqis to stop the insurgents from killing everyone. How is that not helping the situation?
what's your point? the troops aren't in iraq to protect civilians, this is a job they don't do. if somebody gets shot or blown up in iraq, the troops don't give a damn as long as it isn't them being shot or blown up. please, inform me of my mistake, tell me the troops go running to the rescue of the local iraqi population each time they hear gunfire in the distance.
They aren't supposed to be the police, but they certainly aren't supposed to stand idly by while people around them are being shot and blown up.
Perhaps they shouldn't be compared to tools then. They do have a mind of their own, and as I said I'm sure every one of them would much rather be home than being shot at. Part of their job is to defend the defenseless. Would you rather they not?
Originally posted by Jenna
Why do the deceased soldiers need to be shown on TV for the rest of us to stare at? Why can they not be brought home and laid to rest by their loved ones without the interference of news cameras?
And if there were no troops, most of us would have been blown up by now. Personally I enjoy not living in fear of every child and vehicle that passes me wondering if this is when I die from a suicide bomber.
They wouldn't be ordered to jump in front of a bus, and if they were that would most likely be considered an unlawful order (damage to government property and suicide all in one) and thus no they wouldn't do it.
Originally posted by pieman
the only difference is that if they desert, they won't participate in an illegal war and possibly kill someone else. i didn't say they had two good choice's, if they have already signed up, they have two #ty choices, but there are still two choices.
what? yes supporting somebody in their overeating does contribute to their obesity. of course it does. undoubtedly, mcdonalds is contributing to the obesity problem to some extent. but mcdonalds doesn't say, "hey, you can eat 5 mcdonalds meals a day and stay fit and healthy" either.
so slight as to be a non issue. joining the military while it is engaged in two illegal wars pretty much ensures you are going to participate in one of them.
fine, replace support with respect every time i said it, my point is still valid.
the whole freaking war is unlawful, everything else after tat is just toppings, the wars themselves are in contravention of international law. both are preemptive. preemptive war is unlawful, any order given in a preemptive war is an unlawful order. and no, domestic law does not count because it didn't count for the nazi's. in the theater of war, international law applies.
probably not, which is why i also used the guy turning the taps on a gas chamber or a guy in the ss, those are both fair comparisons. they both carried out domestically lawful orders that were morally wrong. i do not respect them for doing so. they did not deserve support.
all i said was supporting the troops is the same as supporting the war, the government and the troops are all part of the same machine. the troops are supporting the government by choosing to go to war.
if they are doing what they think is right, i disagree with them, i don't look down on them.
i do look down on the people who have deluded themselves into thinking they can support the troops but not the war. they are promoting their own ignorance in my opinion. i look down on the troops if they don't think they are doing the right thing and are there anyway.
the insurgents as you refer to them don't go around killing everyone in the areas they control. the insurgents are mostly iraqis. have you been living under a rock with a tv permanently tuned to fox or what?
what's your point? the troops aren't in iraq to protect civilians, this is a job they don't do. if somebody gets shot or blown up in iraq, the troops don't give a damn as long as it isn't them being shot or blown up. please, inform me of my mistake, tell me the troops go running to the rescue of the local iraqi population each time they hear gunfire in the distance.
they are tools, tools of oppression, willing puppets of a corrupt administration. they don't defend the defenseless, they defend american interests in iraq, they help to impose the will of the american government in iraq and they defend themselves, that is all they are capable of doing and that is all they desire to do. they do not control the entire country, they do not police the country, they do not stop the training and recruitment of the insurgents. if i am wrong, show me i am wrong...................your living in a freaking dreamworld jenna.
Originally posted by Alethia
I don't take offence to anything you say, you have your right to your opinion as I have a right to mine. However, do you honestly think the soldiers aren't shown out of respect for the families? Do you really believe the government did not block the media from showing such images for fear it would dissuade the public from supporting the war (or troops for that matter). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you know it has to do with government veto and nothing else. No moral high ground is being played by the media here.
Evidence that the MSM have no respect for the family of friends of loved ones can be found in every single news broadcast of the war, where they'll happily show Pentagon videos of bombs blowing up buildings with people in, or footage of helicopters mowing down people with their guns. Hell, they even showed pictures of dead people being carried out of the Virgina Tech shootings, or CCTV footage of some local murder or dead body, hell on 9/11 we were subjected to constant replays of people jumping out of the WTC buildings. You can't have that, and then say the reason pictures of coffins returning back from the war in Iraq or Afghanistan is out of respect for the dead. That is delusional.
There is nothing to fear but fear itself. I'm sorry the Republicans and Bush have got you right where they want you, but I hope I can help to actually open up and not fear your neighbor.
First off, who fears kids? WTF?
Secondly, Al-Queda does not have the ability to take over the US, and nor did Iraq ever threaten to invade the US, so no most of us did not and do not live under a threat of being blown up and never have, troops or no troops to defend us.
Thirdly, on 9/11 when 4 planes were hijacked and flown into buildings, on US soil, we had troops. Hell, we even had NATO the most powerful airforce in the world with the most sophisticated air defence system in the world and guess what, they still got through. There is as much chance now as there was then you could be blown up.
Finally, if you walk around in fear, then the terrorists have already won. That is the point of terrorism, to get you to change your ways and we have, we've upped our defences, invaded countries and stopped being the free democracy they hate so much. By the very efforts of invading Afghansitan and Iraq, the terrorists won, because they struck terror into people like you, who then voted for and supported unjust wars. If we wanted to defeat terrorism, we would have told them that they can bomb us all we like, we will not give up our democracy, we will not close our borders, we will not snoop on our own ciitizens without judicial process, and we will not send our sons and daughters to war.
I don't know if you know it or not, but considering Iraq never funded Al-queda, or had WMDs, or threatened to invade the US in any way, then the order given to the troops to invade Iraq is and was unlawful, and I believe not only in this country, but others also, that the government is being challenged in the courts on this fact. It is an unlawful war and therefore an unlawful order.
I'm not saying we don't need the military, I'm saying we don't need the military in Iraq. They should have never been there in the first place, they shouldn't have been there for the past 5 years, and we shouldn't plan on having them there for the next 5 or more either. Bring them home, bring them home now.
Originally posted by badmedia
ensuring they aren't sent into anything other than defense, now that is support.
Originally posted by Jenna
Before 9-11 no one ever dreamed that anything even remotely close to that would happen here. We weren't looking for it to happen. So yeah, they got through. And were we supposed to shoot down our own planes to stop them once we realized what was going on?