It's entirely obvious that Southerner is a biased denier.
Marko:They absolutely pose a threat. They will kill people on command. People guilty of nothing. How many more people have to die by their hands for them to cease being harmless?
Outside of the battlefield they will not. That is a mistake you are making. You want proof. When they come home they dont kill when someone tells them to. Its much more complex than that.
Marko:I do not buy your picture of ´reluctant warriors´,
Some do not fit the bill of "reluctant warrior", there is no denying that. But many do. They have been fooled into believing they are protecting their friends and family from a hostile force. So yes they are reluctant warriors. They were not raised to be killers and were not killers at home.
Marko:American soldiers are gung-ho, love the idea of "seeing action", take it as a sign of professionalism to have the world split into "good guys" and "bad guys" and are bothered about killing a person in a designated enemy country or "Indian land" as much as they are bothered about squashing a bug.
Maybe, maybe not. That is a broad brush you are using. You claim that they have no problems killing "the enemy" who according to you is anyone they are told is the enemy. If this is the case why are these butchers coming home with major mental and emotional problems. Obviously taking the life of humans (designated enemy or not) is not the equivalent of a bug. Your characterization is just false.
Marko:They do not sign themselves away because they are forced, pressured or bamboozled. They primarily join because the pay and the benefits are excellent compared to what they could with their education earn in civilian sector.
Do they really? Primarially? How do you know this? There are tens of thousand of reservist and national guard serving tours in afganistan and iraq who make a ton of money in the private world. So they have had to give up a great deal of benefits and money to serve. Yet they do. So if its not primarially for the apparently excellent pay and benefits, they why do they?
I do not claim that all american soldiers are just honest, good guys, trying to make the world a better place. I do claim that putting all soldier in the same bucket is based on lack of information and an understandable bias.
Caley McKibbin: It's entirely obvious that Southerner is a biased denier.
lol, and its obvious that you are closed minded incapable of seeing the shades of gray that exist in reality.
I'm so closed minded that I'm a voluntaryist along with countless other highly irregular views. But, it's good that you don't deny being a biased denier. We can aptly toss this eternal skeptic routine regarding the military in the jingoism bin.
Caley McKibbin: I'm so closed minded that I'm a voluntaryist along with countless other highly irregular views. But, it's good that you don't deny being a biased denier.
I'm so closed minded that I'm a voluntaryist along with countless other highly irregular views. But, it's good that you don't deny being a biased denier.
Lol just because your views arent main stream doesent mean you cant be closed minded. That is obvious in your case.
Nothing I can do to change your mind or even get you to see the possibility that the world is full of gray.
I see your point of view and I agree to an extent. But you are too rigid to see anything other than what you want to see and what you want the "bad guys" to be. It makes it real easy for you dosent it.
Mon. 10/04/05 20:40 EDT.post #42
Southern:Outside of the battlefield they will not.
edit: Fuck The Troops
MMMark:edit: Fuck The Troops
Nice to see we are keeping the discussion nice and civil.
MMMark: Southern:Outside of the battlefield they will not....and "the battlefield" always seems to include villages and innocent civilians, including babies...which means they are murderers.I don't see any "gray area" here.They have a license to murder, so they murder. I don't see how you can justify murder, no matter how "gray" you try to make it...but by all means, keep trying. It makes the discussion more interesting.
Once again. All troops dont kill innocent civilians and babies. So this is a mischaracterization meant to illicit an emotional reaction. A cheap tactic used by advocates of the state.
For some reason no one here wants to make any distinctions. War is a horrible thing. The only good choice is to not go to war. Everything else is horrible. In most every war of modern times the soldiers who did the fighting had nothing to gain from the war. Most did not want to go to war. Most veterans wont even talk about what they have seen or done, much less are proud of killing. They may be proud for other reasons but your average soldier does not rejoice in all the death they have seen.
Its very clear cut when we talk of wars with a draft. The wars going on now are no doubt less clear. If what yall say is true, how do you explain the christmas truce of WWI. These are bloodthirsty killers according to you. Yet they laid down their arms played soccer, sang songs, and refused to fight. It was not untill they were threaten with death and imprisonment that they began to fight again.
And as you said to me in another thread it only takes one exception to disprove a point. The christmas truce disproves yours.
Mon. 10/04/05 21:52 EDT.post #43
Southern:Nice to see we are keeping the discussion nice and civil.
Southern:If what yall say is true,...These are bloodthirsty killers according to you.... you said to me in another thread it only takes one exception to disprove a point.The christmas truce disproves yours.
Southern: For some reason no one here wants to make any distinctions. War is a horrible thing. The only good choice is to not go to war. Everything else is horrible. In most every war of modern times the soldiers who did the fighting had nothing to gain from the war. Most did not want to go to war. Most veterans wont even talk about what they have seen or done, much less are proud of killing. They may be proud for other reasons but your average soldier does not rejoice in all the death they have seen.
It is you who does not want to make distinctions. You consistently talk of soldiers as a massive unitary category. That is not the case. A German soldier crossing over into Poland on September the 1st 1939 is not in the same category that the Polish defender is in.I support the Polish troops, I don't support the German ones.
Mon. 10/04/05 22:18 EDT.post #44
Marko:I support the Polish troops, I don't support the German ones.
Southern: Outside of the battlefield they will not. That is a mistake you are making. You want proof. When they come home they dont kill when someone tells them to. Its much more complex than that.
And what is a battlefield? Is Baghdad a battlefield? To six million people it is a home. Battlefield is everywhere the Pentagon says is a battlefield. Wherever their foot sets down where they are not wanted is a battlefield. You asked if they are a threat to you or me. About you I don't know, but I don't live in Washington DC, so I, I have no guarantees my town won't be declared a battlefield or even a "free fire zone" one day.
Southern: Maybe, maybe not. That is a broad brush you are using. You claim that they have no problems killing "the enemy" who according to you is anyone they are told is the enemy. If this is the case why are these butchers coming home with major mental and emotional problems. Obviously taking the life of humans (designated enemy or not) is not the equivalent of a bug. Your characterization is just false.
Iraq body count begs to differ.
Southern:For some reason no one here wants to make any distinctions. War is a horrible thing
That's a great bullshit throw away line. Rape is a horrible thing, but....
Southern:In most every war of modern times the soldiers who did the fighting had nothing to gain from the war
What? We have an all volunteer army. People join the army for a reason, usually to get college funding, or some sort of salary.
Southern:Most veterans wont even talk about what they have seen or done, much less are proud of killing.
How noble of them.
Southern:Once again. All troops dont kill innocent civilians and babies.
All troops may, at some point in time, kill civilians and babies. Also, who is guilty, and who is innocent? The man who goes to a far away land in order to kill Iraqis for college money is innocent, but the man who picks up a weapon and aims it at foreign intruders who frequently destroy his property, kill his friends and family, is somehow guilty.
Southern:If this is the case why are these butchers coming home with major mental and emotional problems.
Because they are guilty of atrocities and they know it.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Mon. 10/04/05 22:44 EDT.post #45
Southern:Obviously taking the life of humans (designated enemy or not) is not the equivalent of a bug.
MMMark: Southern:Nice to see we are keeping the discussion nice and civil.We are...those weren't my words, but rather the title of a blog post, which I linked to.Click on Fuck The Troops, and you can read both the blog post and the ensuing discussion.
He assumes that everyone should know what he knows and draw the same conclusions. Unfortunately, we all dont have the information, we trust different sources of information, etc. that would mean that others could draw the conclusion that the war is just. This is not my opinion but a large portion of the population believe it is. So right there not so cut and dry.
MMMark: Southern:If what yall say is true,...These are bloodthirsty killers according to you.... you said to me in another thread it only takes one exception to disprove a point.The christmas truce disproves yours.No, what I said was ...one example doesn't prove the general case. One counter-example, on the other hand, can disprove it.I try to choose my words carefully, but then you just misquote me. That's not fair, and it's not serious discussion.Take some time and try to understand the important difference between a "point" and "the general case," and please try to use as much care in quoting as I do in composing.
I certainly did not mean to misrepresent you. If you only meant specificly and purposely killing innocent civilians and children would make a soldier a murderer, then we are in complete agreement. However, your second paragraph seemed to be more broad.
In addition the entire post was not directed at you. I guess I should have made a separate post.
Marko:It is you who does not want to make distinctions. You consistently talk of soldiers as a massive unitary category.
I have made distinctions in several posts.
" do not claim that all american soldiers are just honest, good guys, trying to make the world a better place. "
"So put those thousands on trial. Not the millions of average foot soldiers who were forced into service by the extrodinary circumstances created by hitler and his group of thugs."
"Yes there are cases where it is very simple to see who is guilty of a crime and who is not. Other times guilt or innocence is cloudy and obscure. "
Marko:A German soldier crossing over into Poland on September the 1st 1939 is not in the same category that the Polish defender is in.
As you have stated before some cases are easy to determine. Of course others are not. Who were the aggressors in WWI?
Esuric: Southern:For some reason no one here wants to make any distinctions. War is a horrible thing That's a great bullshit throw away line. Rape is a horrible thing, but....
Yes it is glad we agree.
Esuric: Southern:In most every war of modern times the soldiers who did the fighting had nothing to gain from the war What? We have an all volunteer army. People join the army for a reason, usually to get college funding, or some sort of salary.
Currently yes. Vietnam- Draft, Korea -Draft, WWII- Draft, WWI- Draft, Civil War- Draft; My discussion here is not confined to the current military situation.
Esuric: Southern:Most veterans wont even talk about what they have seen or done, much less are proud of killing. How noble of them.
Not meant to demonstrate nobility. Meant to illistrate that few of them are proud of killing. Which is an idea floated around these parts.
Esuric: Southern:Once again. All troops dont kill innocent civilians and babies. All troops may, at some point in time, kill civilians and babies. Also, who is guilty, and who is innocent? The man who goes to a far away land in order to kill Iraqis for college money is innocent, but the man who picks up a weapon and aims it at foreign intruders who frequently destroy his property, kill his friends and family, is somehow guilty.
My discussion is broader than just iraq. The line of thought I am opposed to is that all soldiers engage in an "unjust war" are murders.
Esuric: Southern:If this is the case why are these butchers coming home with major mental and emotional problems. Because they are guilty of atrocities and they know it.
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.
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.
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".
Southern: My discussion is broader than just iraq. The line of thought I am opposed to is that all soldiers engage in an "unjust war" are murders.
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?
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. :)
** Support our Troops **
For our freedoms and world peace.
Southern:Btw its good to see I havent alienated everyone. :)
I don't think you alienated anyone.
I support the troops by advocating their safe return from foreign soil ASAP.
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.
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