Support the troops?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

financeguy

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Dec 4, 2004
Messages
10,122
Location
Ireland
We often hear, from antiwar activists as well as pious politicians and every sort of commentator, that we should all "support the troops." No matter what one thinks of the particular war being fought, this kind of boilerplate is invariably appended: "But of course," we are told, "everyone supports the troops." We honor them for their service. We pat them on the back and say: "Good job!"

These twelve apostles of mayhem — assigned to the 2nd Stryker Brigade, and stationed at Forward Operating Base Ramrod, along the border with Pakistan — randomly chose unarmed Afghan civilians to murder. Then they shot them, or blew them up with grenades, mutilating the victims. Gibbs, the alleged ringleader, made necklaces out of the body parts. They covered up their killing spree by placing weapons near the corpses, and the incidents went down in the records as gun battles with "insurgents."


Gibbs reportedly has a tattoo on his left calf which is a pictorial record of his crime spree: it consists of two crossed pistols encircled by six skulls. According to news reports, the red skulls indicate murders carried out in Iraq, and the blue skulls represent Afghan kills.


Knowledge of the killings was widely shared in the camp, and it’s hard to imagine higher-ups were unaware of what was going on. But there was indeed one apparently unwilling participant, Adam Winfield, who desperately tried to reach out to his parents, to whom he confessed the murders.


The "honor the troops" brigade will tell us this is just another case of a few bad apples: this latest incident is no reason to condemn the entire US military – is it?


Well, quite frankly, it is, because, as Winfield pointed out to his parents in a February 14 Facebook posting: "Pretty much the whole platoon knows about it. It’s okay with all of them pretty much. Except me…. I want to do something about it [but] the only problem is I don’t feel safe here telling anyone." "I talked to someone," Winfield continued, "and they told me this stuff happens all the time and that when we get back there is always someone that spills the beans so it normally works its way out."

The US military is a criminal enterprise, just as the ruling elite in this country is the equivalent of a crime syndicate: and they are getting away with murder. One day, the people’s justice will be visited on them. Let’s hope that rough justice doesn’t unfairly impact us all.



Support the Troops? by Justin Raimondo -- Antiwar.com
 
I dunno. I really believe there are soldiers who join the military with sincere intentions to do good; and then there are those who take advantage of their position and kill innocents. Quite a disturbing story.
 
I have to agree with that statement. Some would argue the "I was just following orders" theory, though, as we found out with the WW2 trials, that isn't exactly a decent excuse (and I would be inclined to agree that that's not a good enough argument, as I think you can only follow orders so long before you find yourself being asked to do something that cannot be justified, and anyone with any shred of humanity and decency would refuse to carry out such horrible requests). Then of course there's the argument that war messes people's minds up so much that they aren't able to properly separate when to attack/kill and when not to attack/kill, which I have no problem believing to be true. It doesn't excuse their behavior at all, but it explains it a lot better.

Personally, I support our troops' efforts when they are defending us from legitimate threats. If one person, or a group of people, are actually plotting or carrying out attacks against our troops or the nation at large at one point and time, I fully understand self-defense and will not argue that (so long as, of course, we're going after the people who actually hurt us). But if they're killing people just to kill, like what happened in this story, with no logical reason behind it, then no, I cannot support that. And besides that, my argument is always that I support wanting our troops to be safe and free from all the burdens war places on them, and the best way for them to have such a thing is to be at home away from the violence and death, but that's not always possible, sadly.

Horrible story. I'd love to think those people will be punished for what they've done, but I'm not sure that'll actually happen, at least not anytime soon. The military still sometimes (if not all the time) has a tendency to look the other way on that stuff.

Angela
 
A lot of times these are just rumors.

Then of course there's the argument that war messes people's minds up so much that they aren't able to properly separate when to attack/kill and when not to attack/kill, which I have no problem believing to be true. It doesn't excuse their behavior at all, but it explains it a lot better.

Our military is trained in such a way so that they always excersise good judgement to the best of their abilities at the situation at hand. Not everyone deals with the stress of war the same way, but generally it takes a long time for that sort of thing to take effect in the middle of a combat zone.

The US military is a criminal enterprise, just as the ruling elite in this country is the equivalent of a crime syndicate: and they are getting away with murder. One day, the people’s justice will be visited on them. Let’s hope that rough justice doesn’t unfairly impact us all.

What a load of bullshit. Not gonna even read what those morons have to say.
 
Geez.....I am sharing too much personal info. But, here goes.

I do support the men and women who serve in our armed forces. But, not always the Commander.

Two family members of mine did a tour of duty in Vietnam. One was reinstated, the other drafted right out of High School. Both came home. In one piece, physically that is. The nightmares and PTSD they suffered was a living hell for them. Both are now with God, at peace. At least, I like to believe and they deserve to be.

My step-dad had to kill one man in self defense. When they were attacked. He came home and never touch a gun again. He died years sooner than he should have. He would wake up screaming in the middle of the night. Reliving it over and over. It ate away his soul. Dad never recieved any kind of after care. It didn't exist for those vets. Ship them home and forget them.

My brother, same thing. He came home and if he heard a car back fire. He would drop to the ground, covering his head. He was spat upon, as a baby killer. So, the wealthy Hippies kids who daddys' could buy them out of the draft, would said. My brother never killed anyone. Since, his job was to authorise jeeps. He died in his mid-fifties. Stomach cancer, so they say? I think "agent orange."
 
"Support the troops" doesn't really jive with me.

I have had friends who have done their military service (both in US and Canadian forces) to kill some time or get some money for college, and the one thread that always resonates with me is that the last thing they want is blind support from the American public. They are very humble about their military service, and above all for them, it is a job. It's not something noble, they are not serving some greater cause, they don't want a stranger to buy them a beer for serving their country.

I guess you could call me "hope the troops don't get killed needlessly", but I don't buy into this bullshit that "once the decision's been made to send the troops in, you've got to be behind them 100%". That black or white thinking is largely what contributed to ruining America during the last administration.

Also, when the Army and other branches of the armed forces continue to target lower-income and minority neighbourhoods when recruiting, you end up with many people with not a lot of hope in life coming out after their service with not a lot of hope in life and the capability to be efficient killers. Killing little brown folks overseas for the White House is largely the business of the poor and minorities in the US, and it does nothing to help with the widening gap between the haves and have-nots.
 
Also, when the Army and other branches of the armed forces continue to target lower-income and minority neighbourhoods when recruiting, you end up with many people with not a lot of hope in life coming out after their service with not a lot of hope in life and the capability to be efficient killers. Killing little brown folks overseas for the White House is largely the business of the poor and minorities in the US, and it does nothing to help with the widening gap between the haves and have-nots.
exactly. i have a couple friends whose significant others have been shipped off to iraq. they'd both done their tour of duty already but reenlisted for the money. one of them had already been having some ptsd things, his wife would wake up sometimes in the middle of the night to see him in bed holding a gun, freaking out during fourth of july fireworks, things like that.

granted, i certainly would never spit on someone who was a veteran or anything, but i don't blindly support the troops either. like canadiens said, there's plenty of grey for this.
 
I don't buy into this bullshit that "once the decision's been made to send the troops in, you've got to be behind them 100%". That black or white thinking is largely what contributed to ruining America during the last administration.

Also largely contributed to the victory of the Allies over Germany and Japan in 1945.
 
So I read more from that article.

"There are no more good men left here."


Of course there aren’t. What kind of person joins the military at this particular point in time – a point when the US is engaged in endless wars of aggression, and stories of atrocities committed by "our" soldiers are coming out all the time? For the most part, precisely the kind of person who would delight in the orgy of bloodlust conducted by the "thrill kill platoon." The military has become an outlet for the sociopaths in our midst.

HE'S GOT ME FIGURED OUT. :doh:
 
Our military is trained in such a way so that they always excersise good judgement to the best of their abilities at the situation at hand.

Always? Perhaps a good deal of the time, sure, but I'd find it hard to believe that's always the case. The people in the military are human, they're going to make mistakes and screw up just like anyone else.

Not everyone deals with the stress of war the same way, but generally it takes a long time for that sort of thing to take effect in the middle of a combat zone.

I mean no disrespect, but I find that kinda hard to believe as well, simply considering what combat and war entails, considering the troubling, horrible things people will see humans do to each other before their very eyes.

Also, when the Army and other branches of the armed forces continue to target lower-income and minority neighbourhoods when recruiting, you end up with many people with not a lot of hope in life coming out after their service with not a lot of hope in life and the capability to be efficient killers. Killing little brown folks overseas for the White House is largely the business of the poor and minorities in the US, and it does nothing to help with the widening gap between the haves and have-nots.

:up: Exactly. Well said. I can think of a few towns I've lived in where this scenario playing out is quite likely.

Angela
 
I mean no disrespect, but I find that kinda hard to believe as well, simply considering what combat and war entails, considering the troubling, horrible things people will see humans do to each other before their very eyes.

What I'm saying is it 99.9% of the time it doesn't make you go on a rampage and kill innocent civilians. The people on that website make it sound like its the other way around. :down:
 
^

I don't believe that 99.9% number. And I say that as somebody who was a civilian (as a child) in a war zone. Maybe it makes you feel better, but there won't be a day from now until I die when I will believe it to be true.
 
What I'm saying is it 99.9% of the time it doesn't make you go on a rampage and kill innocent civilians. The people on that website make it sound like its the other way around. :down:

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying :).

Of course you're right that there are people who don't go on rampages, who manage to deal with the stresses they went through and all that sort of thing. But I do believe it does happen more often than most people realize, be it abroad or when they get back home. Or, at the very least, the threat of such an occurrence is hovering.

Angela
 
I don't believe that 99.9% number. And I say that as somebody who was a civilian (as a child) in a war zone. Maybe it makes you feel better, but there won't be a day from now until I die when I will believe it to be true.

If you don't mind me asking, which war zone was that?
 
I don't know how training is now for our soldiers. I can't give numbers or percentages. But, during the sixties and Vietnam. Poor and middle class kids were drafted right out of High School. They didn't have much of a choice. Training was mimimal and the next stop was hell. Rich kids, well they had their right to protest. At the nearest Ivy League College.

I can only express what my family members went through. I am in no way an expert. But, my dad and brother deserved so much more from our government. When they came home. No one should have had to suffer, like they did. It was yeah your home and f-y. Let's call it a day. No one cares if you suffer for the rest of your shortened life.

When my son was age 13 to 14. There was the ROTC at his school. He brought home a paper and asked if he could join? His dad and I said. Absolutely not. Age fourteen is too young to recruit. Plus, it pissed me off to no end. That ROTC was only located in the middle class and poorer neighborhood public schools. None in the wealthy public schools. And yes there are some.
 
Also largely contributed to the victory of the Allies over Germany and Japan in 1945.
Selective quoting is the first sign of someone who has no good argument or someone who is too lazy to make a good argument.

It's pretty obvious from what I wrote i was talking about the modern era.

No shit, of course we supported the troops in WWII (read: because they had no choice whether to serve or not, you twat).

The modern US Military is a job, not a calling, not a duty.

What I'm saying is it 99.9% of the time it doesn't make you go on a rampage and kill innocent civilians. The people on that website make it sound like its the other way around. :down:
Yes, that website is pretty wacky. Let's ignore it and instead think of the fact that, yes, military training is meant to instill discipline and a cool head under fire. A side effect of that and deployment in an active warzone is being very desensitized to violence and killing.

Combined with the stresses of active duty, in a role as an occupier, fighting a mostly invisible enemy, serving in a day-to-day military culture that downplays or outright mocks psychological issues, it's very plausible that otherwise very nice people crack and do horrific things.

Also, let's face it, a lot of people with deep-seeded, preexisting psychological problems wind up in the military or police forces. There are people like this in every day life and work, but Stevey (who was molested at age 5) down at the local pool cleaning company probably doesn't have access to a storage locker full of grenades, and he isn't spending day-in, day-out in a culture that experiences and sometimes promotes violence.

The military does not automatically churn out nutcases. I know people who have really benefited from the structure and discipline instilled from a couple of years of service. Pushing a blue button repeatedly and loading cases of shells onto transports in Grand Forks probably won't fuck you up for life. But the guys on the ground right now in Iraq or Afghanistan can't count on a great deal of government-funded support for psychological issues in the field or when discharged.
 
What I'm saying is it 99.9% of the time it doesn't make you go on a rampage and kill innocent civilians. The people on that website make it sound like its the other way around. :down:

Pac_Mule the statistics refute this.

And this does't neccesarily reflect poorly upon the military, but it's just a fact that certain jobs attract certain people, and certain jobs shape certain people.

Sadly there is a small percentage that is attracted to the military for the violent aspect of war, same with the police force, security, etc...

There's also a small percentage(although recent studies show that certain wars are worse than others and this particular war is pretty bad) that are extremely affected by the environment and the circumstances of war that make these people violent.

Once again, not a reflection of the military, but more a reflection of violence.
 
Selective quoting is the first sign of someone who has no good argument or someone who is too lazy to make a good argument.

It's pretty obvious from what I wrote i was talking about the modern era.

No shit, of course we supported the troops in WWII (read: because they had no choice whether to serve or not, you twat).

The modern US Military is a job, not a calling, not a duty.

Sounds to me like the pissy response of someone who never made a gutsy decision in his life.
 
Sadly there is a small percentage that is attracted to the military for the violent aspect of war, same with the police force, security, etc...

*Nods* I remember reading an article in Newsweek once about how there are some members of the military who are REALLY into their job, to the point where they don't want to come home, they don't want to get back to "normal" life and deal with bills and family and other people in general. And when they are home, they're very, very isolated and touchy and restless. They're perfectly happy staying in the war zone their whole lives. Of course, I know that you can find instances of people in any job who are unusually devoted to their work and can share those same characteristics when they're not working, but given the duties of this specific job, it can be particular cause for some concern.

That article was pretty unsettling, actually-I felt kinda nervous for the guys' wives. I remember one of them talking about how she pretty much had to tiptoe around her husband and learn to read his "moods" so she'd know when to be near him and when to stay away. He practically freaked out on her one day when she accidentally dropped a laundry basket.

A stor, your story about the recruiters and your son-yikes. The thought of trying to recruit 14 year olds for the military is incredibly troubling to me-I wouldn't let my son or daughter join at that age, either. When they're at the age where they're legally able to do such things, they can do what they wish, but until then...no. I find it amazing that I constantly hear people decry violence in video games and movies and TV for fear that it'll negatively influence teenagers (or children)...but recruiting them for the military is okay, apparently. At least the violence in a video game is fake, nobody is actually dying.

Angela
 
Wow.

So according to a few posters, there are at least 150,000 war criminals currently walking around in the US military, or have been discharged since the two wars began.

Because for 99.9% to not be accurate, that's how many you'd need.

Bullshit hyperbole :down:
 
Back
Top Bottom