Political Theory

Re: what do people really mean by "support the troops"?

Southern — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 20:41:52 GMT

Finally had a chance to start another thread on soldiers culpabilitiy for killing.

Here it is http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/15906/323176.aspx#323176

Re: what do people really mean by "support the troops"?

twistedbydsign99 — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:57:06 GMT

Wibee:
I support the troops by advocating their safe return from foreign soil ASAP.

I have a feeling that would enrage the true believer in empire.

Re: what do people really mean by "support the troops"?

Wibee — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 01:08:14 GMT

I support the troops by advocating their safe return from foreign soil ASAP.

Re: what do people really mean by "support the troops"?

twistedbydsign99 — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 16:41:51 GMT

Southern:
Btw its good to see I havent alienated everyone. :)

I don't think you alienated anyone.

Re: what do people really mean by "support the troops"?

bearing01 — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 00:14:03 GMT

** Support our Troops **

For our freedoms and world peace.

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Re: what do people really mean by "support the troops"?

Southern — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 23:46:18 GMT

Marko:

Southern:

We have gotten a long way off topic. So Im going to start another thread to continue the conversation, if I havent exhausted your patience.

I'm ready when you are.

Its been a busy couple of days at work and I have not had time to get my thoughts together. I didnt want to start the thread with a hasty or thoughtless post. Btw its good to see I havent alienated everyone. :)

Re: what do people really mean by "support the troops"?

Marko — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 13:10:03 GMT

Southern:

We have gotten a long way off topic. So Im going to start another thread to continue the conversation, if I havent exhausted your patience.

I'm ready when you are.

Re: what do people really mean by "support the troops"?

AnonLLF — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 19:44:21 GMT

Here's my thoughts since I've largely stayed out of this:

Killing any person who has not aggressed against you is against the NAP and a violation of rights.ALL libertarians accept this.it's standard/

Unjust war: Wars of aggression,Imperialist wars etc.Include aggression against innocents.

By definition an unjust war is a war of one country's government and soldiers against anoher country's innocent non agressor soldiers and possibly civilians.

Thus all unjust wars -where there is an aggressor country/countries and an innocent nonaggressor ( in this particular case) country/countries- involve murder.I admit not all unjust wars involve innocents on one side.However in thes cases one country is less guilty than another which is in accord with Rothbard's thinking.

Now If country A invades country B and troops of country A kill troops of country B ,They are killers.

I think that It logically follows from Libertarian principles.

I think the only way we can support the troops is to wish they stop killing and come home right now.

On the question of would the troops be a danger in civilian life: well they kill on orders and lies ,that is something to worry about.It's irrelevant though to the question of whether they should be punished.It is of course up to the victim when the aggressor can be identified.I believe the soldiers should be punished.Punishment is about justice not reform or rehabilitation.

that soldiers wear uniforms in no way resolves them of guilt neither does the fact they did it because of state lies.We can feel sorry that they had good intentions but bought horrible lies but intentions do not change the facts.We've had the same sort of discussion about the police and reached this conclusion so why not the military.

I guess it's because we've been reinforced with military worship for as long as we can remember.Some people might also be scared of social pressure and the emotional burden of having to feel friends and family had done wrong.I sympathise with these feelings but the truth is plain.

This debate is about actions and the individuals carrying out the action are not important to whether it is wrong or right I feel.

Re: what do people really mean by "support the troops"?

Southern — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 18:14:02 GMT

We have gotten a long way off topic. So Im going to start another thread to continue the conversation, if I havent exhausted your patience. I would like to start as marko has suggested with the action of taking a life and then go from there to see exactly where I deviate from everyone else.

Re: what do people really mean by "support the troops"?

Southern — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 18:04:10 GMT

twistedbydsign99:

Southern:
Talking a big game is one thing. There is very little you have to give up to do so. Walking the walk is something different. We all go along because the alternative is something much much worse.

And my opinion is people go along because of cowardice. They know that if they condemned the troops a physical fight is not far down the path from that. Furthermore there is the cowardice surrounding peer pressure as well. Fear that saying "I don't support the troops" will leave you isolated.

I agree for the most part. I would argue this same fear is what the state uses to keep all people in line. Me, you, the troops, etc. etc. People may disagree on this or that, but dont stand up because they believe they will be the only ones.

Re: what do people really mean by "support the troops"?

twistedbydsign99 — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 16:49:12 GMT

Southern:
Talking a big game is one thing. There is very little you have to give up to do so. Walking the walk is something different. We all go along because the alternative is something much much worse.

And my opinion is people go along because of cowardice. They know that if they condemned the troops a physical fight is not far down the path from that. Furthermore there is the cowardice surrounding peer pressure as well. Fear that saying "I don't support the troops" will leave you isolated.

Re: what do people really mean by "support the troops"?

Southern — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 16:38:47 GMT

twistedbydsign99:

Scott F:
I just wondered what others thought.

In my opinion what they mean is "I'm too cowardly to speak truth to physical might so I will go along with it."

Are we all too afraid to stand up? Talking a big game is one thing. There is very little you have to give up to do so. Walking the walk is something different. We all go along because the alternative is something much much worse.

Re: what do people really mean by "support the troops"?

Southern — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 16:36:20 GMT

Marko:

Southern:

So if they signed up to kill and feel that the enemy is nothing more than a bug...... then there would be no nightmares. So painting the soldiers are uncaring murders is not accurate.

Nightmares do not equal remorse or caring. Dreams can not be controlled, they come from a place that is deeper down than where their dehumanisation of their enemy but also of the populace resides.

Besides vets` dysfunctionality has as much to do with the tax exerted by constantly being in a situation where you feel in danger, with grief for their own and with seeing ugly scenes as they have to do with them blowing away a few "hajis".

Sure, remorse is not the only thing that causes the mental problems. However, seeing peole killed on a daily basis is as much a source of mental problems as is the stress of battle. Its not one or the other its a combination of all.

Marko:
Lets talk about actions rather than people for a change. What sort of a crime is it to kill an enemy soldier in an unjust war?

Lets talk actions then.

Re: what do people really mean by "support the troops"?

twistedbydsign99 — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 16:33:21 GMT

Scott F:
I just wondered what others thought.

In my opinion what they mean is "I'm too cowardly to speak truth to physical might so I will go along with it."

Re: what do people really mean by "support the troops"?

Southern — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 16:31:19 GMT

Esuric:

Southern:
So painting the soldiers are uncaring murders is not accurate.

Is a murderer any less of a murderer if he regrets it? The fact that they regret it is immaterial. The point is that people are trying to separate the state from the soldiers who obey the orders of generals, politicians, etc. But the state is not some mystical abstract force; it's an organization which is comprised of many different components: the politicians, the generals, the foot soldiers, the school system, the courts, ect. Thus there is no difference between the politicians who declare an unjustified war, those who voluntarily go and fight it, and the propagandists who brainwash the public into accepting it.

The fact that a draft is no longer necessary to carry out wars only reveals how effective statist propoganda really is. Now the draft complicates the question, but it's an interesting one to investigate.

Yes we are all part of the state. Unless you are posting from prison for standing up for your principles.