obviously it often means support the state or the foreign policy but what does it mean when individuals seperate the two and say they oppose the war but support the troops? is this a contradiction? does supporting the troops mean we hope they survive? or that we hope they suceed? if it means we hope they suceed ,does that not lead to us supporting the war? How can we support troops in an unjust war who claim 'enemy' individuals to be aggressors when they are actually innocent (including the opposing state's troops or guerrilla army etc).does each individual attack on the invading soldier by the foreign army constitute initiation of force and thus make the killing just?
essentially are all soldiers -regardless of whether they kill civilians or engage in war crimes- in unjust wars who kill,criminals?
if so can any Libertarian honestly "support the troops".
and also following from this, does this mean Medals are not honourable but really just awards forthe best murderer?
Maybe that would end the cult which has arisen around he military.
sorry if this sounds extreme or harsh but it's been bugging me for such a long time.I have initial inclinations ,I just wondered what others thought.
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
Support the ruler's hired goons.
Anti-war people who "support the troops" say that supporting the troops means getting them out of a pointless war that will get them killed for no reason.
Political Atheists Blog
Its a way for liberals to attack the war without being accused of being unpatriotic. Just spiking the republican's straw man.
They mean shut the hell up.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
There are millions of people in this country whose loved ones are in the military and fighting the war in Afganistan. Of those millions some dont believe we should be there, others think it regrettable but neccessary, and some think it is great in every way. Supporting the troops but not the war is a way of separating the politics from the people. An important distinction not made enough.
Scott F:essentially are all soldiers -regardless of whether they kill civilians or engage in war crimes- in unjust wars who kill,criminals?
Depends. What is an unjust war? Is there an objective criteria? Have those soldier volunteered for service or been drafted? If they dont engage in killing civilians or other "war crimes" why are they criminals? For killing other soldiers, which by definition are criminals themselves?
Scott F:if so can any Libertarian honestly "support the troops".
Sure. If your brother (misguided as he maybe) was a soldier would you wish for falure of the war and his death or dismemberment? Or just the falure of the war? Would it matter to you why he if fighting? Just to kill or if he trully believes (whether it is true or not) that he is defending his home/people/ect?
Scott F:Maybe that would end the cult which has arisen around he military.
Military worship has indeed become far too popular for my comfort. But maybe we need to focus on the source (Government) of the military problem and not the symptoms(people being decieved into believing that they are defending their home/land/loved ones).
Southern: There are millions of people in this country whose loved ones are in the military and fighting the war in Afganistan. Of those millions some dont believe we should be there, others think it regrettable but neccessary, and some think it is great in every way. Supporting the troops but not the war is a way of separating the politics from the people. An important distinction not made enough. Scott F:essentially are all soldiers -regardless of whether they kill civilians or engage in war crimes- in unjust wars who kill,criminals? Depends. What is an unjust war? Is there an objective criteria? Have those soldier volunteered for service or been drafted? If they dont engage in killing civilians or other "war crimes" why are they criminals? For killing other soldiers, which by definition are criminals themselves? Scott F:if so can any Libertarian honestly "support the troops". Sure. If your brother (misguided as he maybe) was a soldier would you wish for falure of the war and his death or dismemberment? Or just the falure of the war? Would it matter to you why he if fighting? Just to kill or if he trully believes (whether it is true or not) that he is defending his home/people/ect? Scott F:Maybe that would end the cult which has arisen around he military. Military worship has indeed become far too popular for my comfort. But maybe we need to focus on the source (Government) of the military problem and not the symptoms(people being decieved into believing that they are defending their home/land/loved ones).
Would you be making the same sort of arguments if we were talking Nazi or Soviet troops in a 'Red Dawn' type scenario?
Marko:Would you be making the same sort of arguments if we were talking Nazi or Soviet troops in a 'Red Dawn' type scenario?
Yes.
Separate the politics from the people. Or do you not believe that average people are used like pawns. Manipulated and sacrificed for a hgher purpose (aka enriching and empowering certain elements of society).
Dont blame the pawns for lacking the sophistication to see through all the bs.
It means giving moral support to hired thugs so that they don't feel guilty and alienated from society.
Caley McKibbin: It means giving moral support to hired thugs so that they don't feel guilty and alienated from society.
Is this true of all wars and soldiers?
Obviously.
Another thought. If we assume all soldiers are criminals then in a red dawn type of scenario, those soldiers who are defending thier country would be criminals too. So why exactly are they criminals? Is it only because they are fighting for a state? (assuming they are only killing other "hired thugs")
Caley McKibbin: Obviously.
So you can see into the hearts and minds all of those who "support the troops but not the war".
Southern: Marko:Would you be making the same sort of arguments if we were talking Nazi or Soviet troops in a 'Red Dawn' type scenario? Yes. Separate the politics from the people. Or do you not believe that average people are used like pawns. Manipulated and sacrificed for a hgher purpose (aka enriching and empowering certain elements of society). Dont blame the pawns for lacking the sophistication to see through all the bs.
But this is not how "support the troops" is understood nowadays. It is one thing to "support the troops" in this sense yourself. But it is another thing to employ pressure in order to browbeat others into outwardly supporting the troops as well."I support the troops." is one thing, but "Support the troops!" is another. If you choose to forgive the Soviet troops for the criminal act of invading the US and killing Patrick Swayze then that is your right. But it is unfair to demand of others to do the same, since it is also their right to instead not forgive the common Soviet foot soldier taking part in the invasion.
Southern: Marko:Would you be making the same sort of arguments if we were talking Nazi or Soviet troops in a 'Red Dawn' type scenario? Another thought. If we assume all soldiers are criminals then in a red dawn type of scenario, those soldiers who are defending thier country would be criminals too. So why exactly are they criminals? Is it only because they are fighting for a state? (assuming they are only killing other "hired thugs")
Nobody assumes this. It is a crime to kill a soldier who is merely defending his country. It is not a crime to defend your country. Whether you wear a state issued costume or not makes no difference.
You can't pay a man to die. Any army depends entirely on the belief of the masses in their actions and troops in their own actions. Take away morale and an army is nothing.
Southern:So you can see into the hearts and minds all of those who "support the troops but not the war".
It is common sense. "Separating people from politics" is just codeword for absolving responsibility.
Scott F:obviously it often means support the state or the foreign policy but what does it mean when individuals seperate the two and say they oppose the war but support the troops? is this a contradiction?
No. It means I respect the sacrifice they are willing to make and do not support how they are being used. Said another way, I thank them for their service, think they have been deployed for reasons not worthy of their potential sacrifice, and so want them home ASAP.
Marko:criminal act of invading the US and killing Patrick Swayze
Lol
Marko:But this is not how "support the troops" is understood nowadays. It is one thing to "support the troops" in this sense yourself. But it is another thing to employ pressure in order to browbeat others into outwardly supporting the troops as well.
Sure it is. This is the understanding of most everyone I know. They dont want us halfway across the world fighting a war with no end, but they have loved ones who are in the military and hope that they make it through unharmed. This is in contrast to the antiwar sentiment during the vietnam war, where opponents of the war wished all sorts of evil on the soldiers (even though at this time the soldiers were drafted into service against thier will).
I do understand your point though. Supporting the troops is most certainly used as a tool of manipulation by the warmongers (being the people who beleive the US should use its military power to establish political control of the world).
Marko:"I support the troops." is one thing, but "Support the troops!" is another.
Agreed, the original post was about "i support the troops but not the war", not support the troops! and therefore the war by association.
Marko:If you choose to forgive the Soviet troops for the criminal act of invading the US and killing Patrick Swayze then that is your right. But it is unfair to demand of others to do the same, since it is also their right to instead not forgive the common Soviet foot soldier taking part in the invasion.
Thank you for not making me blame the pawns and I have not demanded anything of anyone.
Caley McKibbin: It is common sense. "Separating people from politics" is just codeword for absolving responsibility.
Sort of like what the contemporary liberals do with finding excuses for criminals in the social conditions they come from.
Marko:Nobody assumes this. It is a crime to kill a soldier who is merely defending his country. It is not a crime to defend your country. Whether you wear a state issued costume or not makes no difference.
The original post assumes this.
What if he is not defending his country, but is defending his state? I would argue that the US is not a country. It is a state. Without the power of washington the US would have broken up over a century ago starting with the war of northern aggression. Neither was the Soviet Union a country. It too was a state held together by an iron fist. Soldiers on both sides would be fighting for a state.
Caley McKibbin: You can't pay a man to die. Any army depends entirely on the belief of the masses in their actions and troops in their own actions. Take away morale and an army is nothing.
Completely untrue. History is full of examples of men being paid to die.
Caley McKibbin: Southern:So you can see into the hearts and minds all of those who "support the troops but not the war". It is common sense. "Separating people from politics" is just codeword for absolving responsibility.
The question was not if the soldiers are still responsible for their actions.
It was can someone support the soldiers and not the war.
Southern: What if he is not defending his country, but is defending his state? I would argue that the US is not a country. It is a state. Without the power of washington the US would have broken up over a century ago starting with the war of northern aggression. Neither was the Soviet Union a country. It too was a state held together by an iron fist. Soldiers on both sides would be fighting for a state.
It does not matter. A state is indeed not a country. But just because there exists a state it does not mean there does not exist a country also. Between 1922 and 1991 there was no state called Russia, but the country of Russia never ceased to exist. Country is in people's minds not on pieces of official papers.
Perhaps the USA is not a country, but that does not mean there exist no country or countries on the North American continent. In the case of an invasion it is this country the people would rush to defend. That the presently existing state could use the situation take shelter behind them and therefore ensure that by the defending the country they were also defending the state is unfortunate, but it does not change the reality that what their loyalty is to in truth is the country and not the state.
Marko, what differences do you see between a "nation" and a "country"? I think what you are referring to is a nation versus a country; the latter implies a state.
Southern:It was can someone support the soldiers and not the war.
No, it was not. It was what do people mean by it.
You can make up your own meaning for "support the troops". I go by the most common meaning.
Jonathan M. F. Catalán: Marko, what differences do you see between a "nation" and a "country"? I think what you are referring to is a nation versus a country; the latter implies a state.
Country is a geograhical area.
Caley McKibbin: Country is a geograhical area.
It's not an arbitrary geographical area. I guess it could go for either:
Jonathan M. F. Catalán:1. a state or nation
This is the colloquial modern useage.
Caley McKibbin: Southern:It was can someone support the soldiers and not the war. No, it was not. It was what do people mean by it. You can make up your own meaning for "support the troops". I go by the most common meaning.
Yes it was. From the original post.
"obviously it often means support the state or the foreign policy but what does it mean when individuals seperate the two and say they oppose the war but support the troops? is this a contradiction? does supporting the troops mean we hope they survive? or that we hope they suceed? if it means we hope they suceed ,does that not lead to us supporting the war?"
Where did you find this "most common meaning"? Or is it your subjective interpretation of what you think people mean by it?
Marko: It does not matter. A state is indeed not a country. But just because there exists a state it does not mean there does not exist a country also. Between 1922 and 1991 there was no state called Russia, but the country of Russia never ceased to exist. Country is in people's minds not on pieces of official papers. Perhaps the USA is not a country, but that does not mean there exist no country or countries on the North American continent. In the case of an invasion it is this country the people would rush to defend. That the presently existing state could use the situation take shelter behind them and therefore ensure that by the defending the country they were also defending the state is unfortunate, but it does not change the reality that what their loyalty is to in truth is the country and not the state.
So where do we draw the line? How far away from my country can i go before I can no longer justly kill a hostile soldier? If I as a Southerner (the South being my country) take up arms and kill to defend Alaska (not my country but the same state), is that justifiable? If I were to become a mercenary in Afganistan would I be a criminal?
Now back in the real world. If a person believes that terrorists in Afganistan attacked his country and he takes up arms because he believes he is defending his country; is he a criminal?
Well I think all these terms are very confused in the English language and there is much overlap of meaning the way they get used. I just try to use the terms as I think an English person would.
I have a hunch there is much more clarity to corresponding terms in other languages - of peoples who were historically subjugated or politically disunited.
Southern: So where do we draw the line? How far away from my country can i go before I can no longer justly kill a hostile soldier? If I as a Southerner (the South being my country) take up arms and kill to defend Alaska (not my country but the same state), is that justifiable? If I were to become a mercenary in Afganistan would I be a criminal?
Just because there are cases which are ambiguous and where it is hard to determine which party is defending their country and which party is invading and just because you can think of one such an example does not mean there are also cases which on the contrary are very clear and non-ambiguous. For example the British in Africa, the Americans in Iraq or the Soviets in Colorado. All three non-ambiguous examples where one set of combatants is non-criminal and the other set is criminal.
Southern: Now back in the real world. If a person believes that terrorists in Afganistan attacked his country and he takes up arms because he believes he is defending his country; is he a criminal?
Criminality has to do with actions not with beliefs. What you are asking is, is this person a good person. Probably he is. But that, unlike the question of criminality, is a subjective question. Besides, there are tons of criminals who are good people. Just ask the liberals. If what he is doing in Afghanistan is not defending his country then what he is doing is criminal and if we value justice we should want for him to be held accountable and have to answer for it - for the sake of people he killed who unlike him actually were merely defending their country, and for the sake of people whose country he invaded.
What would you say if I drove around with a bumper sticker that said: "Support the good kids who were raised in poverty and bad families and were failed by the system, who then fell into bad company, got hooked up on drugs, and had to resort to burglary to feed their habit, and who during one such burglary accidentally killed an old lady"?
Would you in keeping with the theme of separating the person and the crime ask where I bought it so that you could get one for yourself as well?
And what would you have to say about a nation where every third car had a bumper sticker like this?
Just to clarify. I am on this line of discussion because of a question made in the original post that read along the lines of: are all soldiers, whether involved in war crimes or killing civilians, criminals?
My thoughts are no. It would seem that we agree.
Marko:Criminality has to do with actions not with beliefs.
Sure it does. Beliefs determine which actions are criminal and which are justified. Even in a free society the beliefs of the population will determine what actions are criminal.
Marko:If what he is doing in Afghanistan is not defending his country then what he is doing is criminal and if we value justice we should want for him to be held accountable and have to answer for it - for the sake of people he killed who unlike him actually were merely defending their country, and for the sake of people whose country he invaded.
Everyone is accountable for their actions. This I do not deny. The problem is determining what actions they should be punished for and which ones are not punishable. Because of this I take issue with those who wish to paint all soldiers as criminals. It is a faulty and simplistic veiw.
Marko:What would you say if I drove around with a bumper sticker that said: "Support the good kids who were raised in poverty and bad families and were failed by the system, who then fell into bad company, got hooked up on drugs, and had to resort to burglary to feed their habit, and who during one such burglary accidentally killed an old lady"?
That you are a more forgiving soul than I?
Marko:Would you in keeping with the theme of separating the person and the crime ask where I bought it so that you could get one for yourself as well?
I am not separating peole from thier crimes. I am asking how do we determine if their actions are crimes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGJESEUYaQg
It's hard to remember sometimes that most folks don't view war as murder per se, so you can't really view a soldier who kills as equivalent to a murderer because chances are he believes he hasn't committed murder. Support the troops is a vague statement; one would think that removing troops from harm's way would be supporting the troops, but it often seems as though that's not what people mean by 'support the troops'.
Southern: Just to clarify. I am on this line of discussion because of a question made in the original post that read along the lines of: are all soldiers, whether involved in war crimes or killing civilians, criminals?
Not all soldiers. Just those engaged in an unjust war.
Southern: Everyone is accountable for their actions. This I do not deny. The problem is determining what actions they should be punished for and which ones are not punishable. Because of this I take issue with those who wish to paint all soldiers as criminals. It is a faulty and simplistic veiw.
I think you make an effort not to see that there exists a very simple way to determine which soldiers are engaged in criminal activity and which are not, because this would mean you would have to condemn thousands of American soldiers. I think you are engaging in wilful moral relativism. If all were to adopt your stance then it would not be possible to say that anything is wrong with wars of aggression at all. If you claim it is not possible to condemn people for engaging in a crime then you can not condemn the crime. If there is nothing wrong with an American joining the army to be shipped to occupy Iraq then there is nothing wrong about the US army occupying Iraq. Non-crimes do not magically become crimes just because they are done by an army of a state.
Anybody who served in the occupation of Iraq is a wrongdoer who owes restitution to his victims. At the very least what he owes is an apology. If a common soldier has nothing to apology for to Iraqis then neither have Paul Bremer or Tommy Franks. And I don't believe you really believe Paul Bremer and Tommy Franks have nothing to apologise for.
"When men hire themselves out to shoot other men to order, asking nothing about the justice of their cause, I don’t care if they are shot themselves." -Herbert Spencer
Never-Ending War in the MiddleEast by Doug Casey