NEWS: Support The Troops, DAMMIT! (Part Deux)

Well, I wasn't really suggesting anything. Simply debunking Colinism's suggestion that the military is not primarily a war making organization. But you illustrate nicely the circular nature of the whole thing.

Good. Here is what everyone needs to understand "There is no way to peace. Peace is the way." AJ Muste

Faulkland islands war?

More unintentional hilarity from Colinism. Bless.

Whats so funny it fits the question he asked.

I think he was making a point about the nature of human conflict and the difficulties surrounding effective diplomatic solutions and how resolutions to conflicts often don't hold out well into the future when one perspective is dominant.

I don't think he actually wanted you start naming wars, you silly sausage.

Then he should just say so and not ask stupid philosophical sounding questions with real world answers that blow the point outof the water.

It's called a rhetorical question. And you couldn't blow bubbles out of water, dude.

You're kidding right?

First off, it is not a "stupid philosophical question" unless, of course you consider thinking to be stupid. The point of the question was to provoke thought. I am sorry about your allergic reaction.

However, you are also wrong. The Treaty of Utrecht, which ended the "War of Spanish Succession" gave sovereignty of the Falkland Islands to Spain, which later devolved to United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata (later Argentina). Britain has at various times disputed the claim - although in its history an Argentine flag has flown over the Islands many times.

The 1982 was simply the boiling over of a very long dispute, based on a series of wars between European nations (including France, Spain, England and Germany) in which sovereignty of the Islands has been a piece on the board.

Fact is there is no war whose roots cannot be traced to some other war. War is the only real perpetual motion machine.

Thats still a pretty far stretch, I think a more correct statement would be that there is no war that has not been used as an excuse to have another war.

Your still throwing your opinion into things and acting as if it's indisputable fact, I'm out this thread has gotten FAR from it's original topic.

BTW for next time list off a few reputable UK publications that you would accept as valid sources I know nothing of which of your papers are reputable and which are crap.

Also, it's a damn shame that you can't seem to discuss anything without eventually dodging questions asked of you and making personal attacks on people.

I don't think so, attitudes toward the military have much to do with how one thinks about "supporting the troops."

And, if you are familiar at all with history, you know that the "facts" are always really just someone's take on the story. But, my study of history - which has been pretty extensive - supports what I am saying. Wars leave a bad taste in the mouth of the losers. Sooner or later that taste leads them to take action.

Bottom line is this: the idea that there is a military path to peace is bankrupt at its core.

Right, nice spin. When you can't provide support for your illusionist assertions, change the context.

Nick are you trying to say, that regardless of circumstance each one of us needs to accept responsibility for our own actions?
I mean, I think that you might have said it a few times already (14), but for whatever reason it is being ignored.
I'm having a hard time understanding why the concept is so difficult to grasp, could some one explain what is wrong with it?

I'd be interested to know what action the Germans, Italians and Japaense have taken since the end of WW2? Or what action you think they're likely to take in the future?

I even agree with him.

Sorry. The Daily Telegraph is a right wing rag, They have an agenda that involves demonizing muslims.

And no, sorry I don't think that the Faulklands War disproves NickFaust's original argument. Maybe if you explained your thinking a bit I might be swayed, but it depends how important you think it really is to the line of discussion.

I don't see why you wouldn't. I don't see how it's an idea that's incompatible with military service.

If you're told to do something (in any context) that you know is wrong then you're not going to do it because you have responsibility for your own actions, right? Being in the military doesn't change that, in fact I would think that having that kind of integrity makes a better soldier, right?

Sorry, you want me to predict the future?

If I ever get good at that, I won't waste it in the CE boards.

If the Germans, Italians and Japanese have resolved their imperial desires, it will probably have something to do with the fact that the Marshall Plan and the reconstruction of Japan were VERY different from the previous resolution of conflicts.

However, that does not mean that there were not negative outcomes that arose from the conduct and resolution of the war. Yalta (I mistakenly said Pottsdam in my last post on this topic) and the alliance with the Soviets set off a whole chain of events - much of which has lead us to our current condition, and war.

You are seeking a simplistic cause and effect process, life, war and peace are more complex than that.

So yeah, I should amend my statement, sometimes the resolution of conflict leaves a bad taste in the mouth of the winners.

Yes. And I asked the same question a while back.

And I will amend (I am in an amending mood this morning) it to say that, given that premise, our responsibility in "supporting the troops" is to not put them into situations imbued with moral conflict (i.e. war) - or at least not to do so frivolously and in pursuit of purely political objectives - e.g. the invasion and occupation of Mesopotamia.

The men and women in the armed forces are a resource. War destroys people - both during and after it - it should be used judiciously and as a last resort. THAT is how we "support the troops" we keep them out of harm's way except when there is no alternative.

So, if you want to "support the troops" put pressure wherever you can to end the occupation of Mesopotamia and to force the government to stop the use of war powers resolutions that empower the executive to act like a king.

As much stupidity has been in this thread, re-reading it, it has raised some really decent questions.

I completely agree with NickFaust that each and every person is ultimately responsible for their own actions. That, in the context of this thread, each soldier made a choice to join, knowing that they could be called upon to kill other humans. How anyone could think that they could join the military without even giving that idea a passing nod is beyond me.

Soldiers are trained to kill our enemies as they are defined by the government. Yes, they are also trained to and often carry out a lot of other duties and missions, but their ultimate purpose is war, whether it be overseas or at home.

This is where personal morals come into play and cloud the argument. Our government has chosen an enemy, and our soldiers are fighting them. I will not look down at any soldier for performing their duty just because I do not particularly agree with why it is all happening. The reason I refuse to do that is because I know that they would just as willingly pick up that gun to protect me and mine against an enemy that is a proven threat. I will not ask a soldier to kill only when I personally agree with the choice, and none of us should. Because what I agree with is not what every other person in America will agree with. If that makes any sense. I feel myself starting to ramble.

I will be upset by any soldier who acts to disgrace all of the people fighting next to them by knowingly committing horrible acts against people who are innocent, or by mistreating the ones who have been deemed guilty. Too many people that I know see their military service as an honor and do their best to uphold their positions with as much pride as possible.

I'm fucking livid at our government for what is, in my mind, abusing the trust of not only the American people, but of the good soldiers who signed up hoping to serve the best interests of our country, and instead are being forced to occupy a position that garners a lot of disgust from the international community and even within our own nation. But that anger inside of me does not transfer to the feet on the ground.

I am really sad that yet another generation of people in the military are being so mentally damaged in this war. I can't even imagine the atrocities of war, and I've heard plenty of first hand accounts. It has to be doubly bad to be involved when you aren't even sure of why you are doing it.

Um, yeah. Definitely rambling. And I still feel like I haven't made a point.

*sigh*

I need more coffee than I am allowed to have to think this deeply this early.

If this is rambling, ramble on.

So wait, we... agree?

Don't worry, it happens to the best of us.