Why feel social guilt to support troops?

I feel no social guilt. I do it because it makes me feel good. I love my country, and the men defending it...enough said.

 

One hell of an American there. Are you an American?

 

Did these rich old men attack Pearl Harbor and fly planes into the World Trade Center?

 

Your first sentence concerns me. A social conscenience is crucial imo.

What precisely makes you feel 'good'? Is there a cut off point? Surely being involved in immoral actions doesn't make you feel good, does it? Surely this does not show you or your country in a good light? Surely you cannot feel good about taking part in that action, which then leads to the loss of civilian life, including young children?

If that makes you feel good, then once more, this would concern me.

I notice that you play the 'love your country' card.

Thanks for making my whole point for me.

Your implication here is to love your country, you must be prepared to turn a blind eye to all that is done in the name of it, even if that includes murder.

That, at least for me, is where so many go wrong, this myth that it somehow means you love your country.

Surely someone can love their country, the beauty of it, it's history, it's diversity, without having to support or commit dubious actions, in foreign lands?

 

That was not, by defintion, an act of war, but an act of terrorism.

It may appear to be the same thing, to you, but the difference is huge.

Just sayin'..

 

So, we should just disarm and allow everyone to kill us? Maybe you need to move elsewhere.

 

Where did I say that?

But the last time I looked, no country was engaging in an invasion of either the US or the UK. If they are, it must be super covert, as it almost doesn't exist.

There is a huge difference between defending yourself from an invasion, and being involved in large scale, never ending, and dubious operations.

But then you already knew that, didn't you..

 

Are you suggesting that we should have waited for Hitler to come get us? Your lack of common sense is dangerous.

Taking the fight back to Alqaeda was prudent, rebuilding two countries was not.

 

I don't feel any social guilt to "support" the troops. Why should I? Most of them are just average people who are either fooled into thinking they are defending us or are just looking for a paycheck, college tuition, or whatever. The average soldier is not much different than any other person you would randomly meet on the street.

They take an oath and then turn right around and break it and don't even realize it because they haven't bothered to read and understand the supreme law of the land they swore to uphold and defend. It's what happens when people let others do their hard thinking for them, like most people do.

I pray that the ones I know personally come back safely and maybe have their eyes opened by seeing the empire's real nature up close and personal. But no, no "support" (whatever that means) for the troops in general other than the (formerly) common courtesy and tolerance that I would offer any peaceful stranger. And no guilt about not providing it.

 

most in the military are poor those are the ones that get the most dangerous jobs..

the rich guys like Bush are promoted in rank upon entry for safer jobs

these guys are being exploited and republicans make it very difficult for the President to get a quick withdrawal without losing votes.

 

Excuse me..."the love of country card" Doesn't that refer to needed a card to play when you are all out of options? Example: "the race card"....how can I possibly be playing a card? It's right out there....I said...I SUPPORT OUR TROOPS because I love them, and I LOVE MY COUNTRY. No card necessary.

You however, may be a different story. Indeed, you play a card...it's this one.

"our troops are evil, they kill children"

Now, that's a card. It's a card used by people such as yourself, who will never understand the sacrifices our countrymen make everyday so that you can sit on your computer and spu your hatred, and your ignorance for the freedoms that you take advantage of, yet feel no obligation for.

You don't want to support our troops, fine...leave that to people like me. You can thank me, and our troops in your own time. But, you will someday.

Of course I don't even know if you are an American. (you don't state where you are from) In which case....if you are not. Someday, like many many other countries...you may find yourself thanking an American soldier for saving your ass someday. And, thanking the people like me who support them everyday.

 

The Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor and the Germans were already attacking our Trade Vessels so War was going to happen whether the Japanese attacked us or not. That's all in the past now lets deal with issues that currently affecting our Nation.

Sending our Soldiers abroad to defeat/eliminate an organization that has done us harm is the only rational choice. Nation Building is not... it's costing us greatly for our continued involvement across the entire Globe Currently. We're not safer at all because we're over there at all so lets simply destroy out enemies as best as possible then pack up and leave. There is no reason for us to remain in a country to try to teach them Morals... they need to learn it themselves just as the orginal Founders did if they wish to have a Free Life without Government oppression.

 

What has this got to do with Hitler?

I am speaking of present operations and occupations that were and are of dubious nature, not WW2.

Don't know if you see a difference, but Germany were bulldozing their way right across Europe, while declaring formal war on many. This is somewhat different to Iraq, unless you are making some stretch that it was better to go in and kill lots of civilians, 'just in case Iraq ended up being like Nazi Germany, and even wanted to invade America'.

But you surely don't think that.

Do you?

 

Pearl Harbor was a sneak attack with the express intention of having us sue for peace. It back fired on the Japanese and they 'awoke the sleeping giant.'.

An act of terror? Or war? Or both in the same? I'd say war.

 

My fault.

I did not make it simple enough.

I will now try again, only this time, try to make it more simple.

It is quite possible to 'love your country', yet totally condemn that decicsions made by your Government, do you agree?

It is quite possible to love your country, and at the same time, entirely oppose what troops are doing, in a foreign land, to civilians, do you agree?

I would even go as far as to say that sometimes the MOST patriotic thing is to stand up and be counted, be the one to say something is not right or ethical, be that within a political system or a military one.

There must always be a time when that happens among the people, when they reject this fed compulsion to support 'the troops', and that somehow, by engaging in what are often unethical acts, this is evidence of how much they 'love their country'.

Might I suggest that if this is truly how you express 'love', then it concerns me.

Here is a far harder war that I would invite you to engage in.

You don't need to wait for orders for this one, you can make up your own mind, do it today if you want.

Now, see, through our short history, we have been a tribal and often ugly little species, haven't we?

However, some people would like to move away from tribalism, war, and perpetual conflict, we're funny like that, and we feel it is a measure of a more civilised society, if we can achieve this. It's not easy, not only do you have political and corporate influences trying to shape the landscape, like I said, we are often, by nature, a tribal creature.

But some are getting there, we see that all around, and that, for me, that is the real fight, to reject the jingoism and rhetoric that tries to justify killing, and to embrace a sustained period of peace and no death.

That would really be something to be proud of, no?

 

I think only a monster would say that the A bomb attacks on Japan were proportionate, and reasonable.

They weren't.

I believe they were a pivotal moment in the history of mankind.

And not in a positive way.

 

"The mantra is 'support the troops'. And, of course, if you do not conform to that, and shout it as loud as possible, as often as possible, then you can handily be rounded on, for not doing so."

Talk about a great strawman. That's total nonsense. So, strut around and feel good about yourself but unless you say, "I'm not supporting the troops," no one will even notice. Now, if you don't vocally support President Obama you will be called a racist and might get a visit from the food police.

 

You were not talking about that when I responded to your post about Pearl Harbor.

 

There is no Strawman.

Take Facebook, to use one example.

Just recently, a friend on there made a status that was words to the effect of being in support of 'the British troops'.

Predictably, a handful of people liked it, as they do.

Now, I am quite sure that there were a good few out there who really thought 'What a lot of bollocks, what is with this idea that to be a good Brit, you must support the unethical actions of men whose job has seen the death of so many civilians'. But the social pressure of not wanting to offend a friend is great, and acts better than any official censorship.

Let's also be honest. Soldiering must be one of the few professions in which employees go into a situation, and likely have not the first clue as to the nuances of it, esp not the youngest soldiers.

Sure, they will get their formal training and be processed, but when you think about it, some of these soldiers are barely in their teens, and they know nothing of the politics behind what they are doing.

This entirely suits the puppet masters, it is the reason they keep the age so low. If they were to make it around 25, they would find that many men, by this age, would not be so easily won over, and would consider things that bit more.

Of course, all nations have a right to defend themselves against direct attack.

However, it is 2011, and at this moment in time, I do not see a nation in the world that has the means, let alone the inclination, to attack and invade either the US or the UK. But by all means, retain a military, and even a home guard, for that very possiblity, however small.

 

I didn't make a post about Pearl Harbour, until the last one.

What are you asking or stating, in relation to this topic?

 

Sorry, Maat did. Your response indicated your felt it was an act of Terror.

Sorry for the confusion.

I do not believe Pearl Harbor was an act of terror.

As far as supporting the Troops, yes I do. Do I support where they are sent? Not necessarily.

On the other hand I do not go out of my way to target any one group for grief or support. But troops, you get my thumbs up, its a bad job and someone has to do it.

 

But what if that 'job' involves the wholesale slaughter of a nation's people, on the grounds of misinformation and lies?

Because that is what we witnessed in Iraq. I cannot say I supported the troops in that action, as I felt it immoral from the outset. And I never changed my mind, or saw anything to change it.

I suppose the German people equated love of military as love of Germany, no doubt, and by the same token, they are happy to 'support their troops', no matter how 'difficult the job'.

Perhaps if they hadn't, then so much grief and life could have been spared?

Perhaps if the soldiers themselves stopped acting like robots, and more like thinking human beings, much of what Hitler was able to do, would have been made impossible? Remember, a despot can only carry out large scale murder, if he has the support of many to do it. And that 'many' are often ordinary people who have been swept along by this 'love of the country' BS.

 

I understand what you are saying. I would retort that it is a stretch to compare anything in Iraq to Nazi Germany. We do not specifically target civilians. I've had several family members on the ground in Iraq, in actual combat. They all said that everyone they engaged with was armed. They also noted the surprise that the insurgent/terrorist had that they administered first aid/medical care to them after they had wounded them. Further more, they had their hands tied in some cases which cost us American lives.


It is our responsibility as a nation to elect leaders who will act in a moral way. Lying to achieve aims should not be tolerated, but is, as witnessed by Obama, Bush, and Clinton, it is.

Should we be in Iraq? I dont think so. But we are there and we should make the best of it.

 

I am not really making a direct comparison between the actions in 30's Europe, by Nazi's, and the actions in Iraq.

The only comparison I am making is one of mindset.

I am sure that a great many Germans, often cultured and educated, felt that they were being patriotic in their support of German forces, in whatever projects they were engaged in. After all, they knew best, and what was good for the Reich for good for them.

I used that example, since it illustrates well what can happen when blind support for nationalism, war, and actions of soldiers, can finish up.

I like to think people live in more educated times, rather than cow towing to authority figures, the way they once did, without question.

Time was when no one would have dared question the word of the minister, for example.

These days, people do question them, since they have shown themselves to be just like any other people, with just the same failings.

Time was, people would just do what the doctor told them. Now people are rightly questioning treatments, esp medications that they are given. They are reading up on them.

Time was a politician would have slicked back the cream on his hair, and assured everyone that what was happening was 'for the best'. Now more people are fed up with it all, and are asking, 'why do we keep sending the poor to fight wars that the rich benefit from?'. Good question.

That is why the actions and decisions of any Gov, and it's armed forces, must be transparent, and people held accountable, at all times.

If you do not have that in place, the potential is there for terrible things to happen. Not even soldiers can hide behind the excuse of following orders. In the end, they are people first, they were not born a soldier, they have been literally made into someone that can kill - which sounds pretty horrible, when put like that.

If those orders seem unreasonable, then a strong man would refuse them.

If it were to impact on his freedom and career, it is what he should do, if those orders appear to be a clear violation.

Soldiers are people, let's not forget this.

They are not pawns for the rich and powerful to use in a whimsical manner, in conflicts that could have been avoided.

It is not right that they are misused this way.