Support Our Troops (OH!)

ted · Post by **ted** » 28 Sep 2004 14:28

This began as a pm between username and myself, in response to my antiwar signature. Please read and contribute your thoughts here. His pm (he later apologized for his harsh tone):

hey, I like the fact that you're against the troops and all that, cause their fighting to save your sorry ass. What would you like them to do with this "non-violent approach," go over their with banjos and sheet music and sing them into submisson? Now, you dont have to like the war, but surely you can support our troops who understand the risk that they are taking, and are willing to fight for our freedom.

This message brought to you by a strong willed conservative

My reply:

Ok, perhaps my signature was taken too much out of context. Here it is in its entirety:

"I believe in ingenious, nonviolent struggle for justice and against oppression. So I won't support our troops and I won't support anyone else's troops when they go about their murderous business. And I'll say it, regretfully, to the black Union soldiers of the 54th Massachusetts, and to the young people who threw stones at Brezhnev's tanks when he invaded Czechoslovakia, that they died in vain. They died perpetuating a cycle of human violence that must be stopped because there is no such thing as a just war. Never was. Never will be." (Erwin Knoll, 1991)

> cause their [our soldiers are] fighting to save your sorry ass

No war in my name, please. I don't support the war party, I don't support violence as a solution to any problem. I rallied against the war from the inception and I continue to hold that perspective. Just because "our boys" are now overseas is certainly not enough to make me change my mind. Note that I do recognize the courage and resolve of someone committed to a cause, and I respect them for that, but they are perpetuating what I believe is fundamentally wrong and I cannot support them. I wish them a safe return home, but as long as their goal is violence, I don't wish them success.

> What would you like them to do with this "non-violent approach," go
> over their with banjos and sheet music and sing them into submisson?

Don't make a farce out of an ideology just because you don't understand it. International law is a powerful thing, the United Nations has unanimously reproached terrorism and acts to support removal of dictatorships in violation of human rights, etc. The United States are the ones at odds with these goals; we are the only permanent member who has been condemned by the World Court for unlawful force (only to veto the resolution asking for our adherence). We have made a mockery of an international body holding significant power to influence worldwide cooperation against terrorists, unfair regimes, and the like. Do not underestimate the power each country holds in economy, trade embargos, etc. The people we are fighting against (al Qaeda, Saddam, Taliban) are groups we have supplied money, arms, and training to in the past, for various reasons. To arm your enemy is to necessitate war.

Erwin Knoll was right on when he referred to "a spiral of violence." There now exists an action-reaction cycle that leads only to more destruction, "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." I believe the solution to all conflict lies in understanding and reconciliation, not shortsighted brutal response. It is paramonut that we recognize international law and cooperate with organizations like the UN; these are the sorts of non-violent solutions I believe in.

What do you think? Do you believe in violence as a solution? Do you believe in non-violence? Civil disobedience?
For anyone who supports the use of deadly force, how do you address the risk of perpetually escalating violence?

sandman420 · Post by **sandman420** » 28 Sep 2004 14:50

the spiral of violence you reffer to is human nature. I am totally against the war in Iraq AND afghanistan, and any other future pace the "war on terror" may take place.

Why? Because you can not fight a war on terror. All you do is make new terrorists. Why? Because no matter how precise your bombs are, you kill lots of innocent people. When innocent people die there friends and family and brothers and sisters etc etc will hold that grudge (rightfully so).

I know for damn sure that if America was the terrorist nation (which it is) and another country was attacking us to "get rid of the terrorists" and my mom or sister or friends house was "accidentally bombed" then I would do whatever was in my power to bring as much pain and suffering to those perpatrators, wouldnt you? Put it all into perspective.

Indeed, what we SHOULD do is change our foreign policies that are so wrong and hurtful to the weak and powerless and innocent abroad.

You know what this war is? Its the THIRD WORLD WAR. But not in the context you may think. This bad ass mighty country uses all of its force and technology to fight THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES. Wow. Amazing. We beat down helpless little shithole countries. We are so badass. Funny thing is not too long ago we trained and armed the same people we are fighting. Ha.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 28 Sep 2004 14:52

I support our troops . . .

which is why I stand on my soap box screaming about leaders who place them in bad positions, and try to rally people to vote them out of office. I've never attacked the soldiers, even those in the photographs with the dogs and naked pyramids. I attack those who place the troops in these situations.

Supporting our troops does not mean letting our leaders send them into unjustice wars on falsified evidence while remaining silent, waving a flag. That would be supporting tyranny, and no patriot would ever support tyranny in any form.

*plink* $0.01 *plink* $0.01

sandman420 · Post by **sandman420** » 28 Sep 2004 15:01

thats also why my signature says "PEACE IN THE MIDDLE WEST"

we should focus on making peace for ourselves, not others. America is one of the biggest shit stains in the world and we waste alllllll this money on fighting a stupid war that serves absolutely no purpose.

wolfpac444 · Post by **wolfpac444** » 28 Sep 2004 15:24

sandman420 wrote:the spiral of violence you reffer to is human nature.

I find the "human nature" argument to hold little to no water. If there are people who want to end a spiral of violence, how can you say that it is human nature to want otherwise? Blaming something on "human nature" is a defeatist view and avoids addressing the issues at hand.

Tsiangkun wrote:I support our troops . . .

which is why I stand on my soap box screaming about leaders who place them in bad positions, and try to rally people to vote them out of office. I've never attacked the soldiers, even those in the photographs with the dogs and naked pyramids. I attack those who place the troops in these situations.

I don't agree with this view since it totally removes any responsibility and accountability from individuals. When it comes down to it, those who are participating in the war are making a personal decision that they feel it is acceptable to travel across the world and start killing people. I am not willing to let those in the military "off the hook" by calling them mere puppets -- I believe people are more than that.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 28 Sep 2004 15:41

I agree with username. When England controlled our sorry asses, it was violence that lead us to freedom. Not politics, not grass roots campaigns, but violence.

Nature is not kind. A flash flood will not step aside so you may pass, a hungry tiger will not look the other way upon spying fresh meat, a terrorist will not sucome to ~peace~.

Name one terrorists organization that has lead anything or anyone to freedom? Good luck.

Fact is, you guys are too pacifist in your views and like the ants that march the earth, you will be squashed by an enemy that could care less what your good intentions are.

When the gun is aimed at you (and it will be if terror isn't brought to justice) what do you intend to do?

wolfpac444 · Post by **wolfpac444** » 28 Sep 2004 15:48

FlexThis wrote:I agree with username. When England controlled our sorry asses, it was violence that lead us to freedom. Not politics, not grass roots campaigns, but violence.

And it was nonaggression that lead India to freedom from England. What's your point? There are different ways of going about things.

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 28 Sep 2004 15:55

My point is that sometimes it is best to stand and fight, rather than hold up a sign in protest.

We all agree that 2 intelligently educated men can make a better decision based on facts than uneducated men.

Some men are unintelligent and uneducated and only understand one thing, violence. Which is why we have a military in the first place. So we can communicate in the language in which they speak. In this case that language is violence.

You all have a right to your opinions, I happen to disagree with that opinion. A bully will not leave you alone based on dialog alone. Sometimes you have to hit the fucker to get him to understand. Speak his language, get results.

ted · Post by **ted** » 28 Sep 2004 16:06

FlexThis wrote: a terrorist will not sucome to ~peace~.

A terrorist is not someone who hates peace, Democracy, freedom. They will not succumb to 'banjos and sheet music'. But they can be dealt with wisely and responsibly.

FlexThis wrote:My point is that sometimes it is best to stand and fight, rather than hold up a sign in protest.

Nonviolence is fighting. What I have outlined as effective methods of dealing with tyrannical dictators and 'terrorists' is fighting, just not careless murder.

FlexThis wrote:Sometimes you have to hit the fucker to get him to understand. Speak his language, get results.

This I can agree with, but who's the bully? Who's the fucker that doesn't understand? We got slapped. Lets take our own advice.

FlexThis wrote:Name one terrorists organization that has lead anything or anyone to freedom? Good luck.

U.S.A.?

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 28 Sep 2004 16:08

FlexThis wrote: Nature is not kind. A flash flood will not step aside so you may pass, a hungry tiger will not look the other way upon spying fresh meat, a terrorist will not sucome to ~peace~.

I've been the attempted victim of three muggings, and was let go with all my items three times. Would an agressive approach yielded a better result ? What could violence have gained me but reason for another attack.

Name one terrorists organization that has lead anything or anyone to freedom? Good luck.

Define terrorist organization, freedom, and anything.

Fact is, you guys are too pacifist in your views and like the ants that march the earth, you will be squashed by an enemy that could care less what your good intentions are.

Ants can't be squashed out, bad example on your part. Next time could you make the pacifist like water ? I have a grand canyon reference I woudl like to use. Strength is not always what appears to be strength.

When the gun is aimed at you (and it will be if terror isn't brought to justice) what do you intend to do?

I intend to present them my view of the world, same as the muggers. If someone wants to kill randomly, there is nothing you can do to protect yourself. Why do you insist on walking around in fear of the terrorist attacking "you".

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 28 Sep 2004 16:18

FlexThis wrote: Some men are unintelligent and uneducated and only understand one thing, violence.

I've noticed you are a big proponent of violence.
LINE
read
LINE

You all have a right to your opinions, I happen to disagree with that opinion. A bully will not leave you alone based on dialog alone. Sometimes you have to hit the fucker to get him to understand. Speak his language, get results.

I've used violence to sucessfully defeat bullies. I was left wondering when the retaliation attack would come. In this regard, not getting attacked is not PEACE, it is infact TERROR.
Violence can never lead to stability and lasting peace, at best we can achieve an uncomfortable silence while they reload the weapons.

lightningbolt · Post by **lightningbolt** » 28 Sep 2004 16:26

This is what I say:

This one is for Jeremy, I knew he was up to something....

Frenzal · Post by **Frenzal** » 28 Sep 2004 16:42

Are you familiar with the history of Northern Ireland? Go brush up and you may better understand how well fighting terror with violence works.

Senor Grommet · Post by **Senor Grommet** » 28 Sep 2004 17:42

To FlexThis:
BTW, there are way more ants on this planet than there are human beings. And its only a matter of time until they realize their own abilities; that they may ban together and overthrow the stupid human presence on Mother Earth. (Just as there are many more people who believe in peace that, as of now, have not figured out the best way to make their voiced heard, but soon will). I offer no solution to this problem other than to atttempt to expand people whose narrow minds blind them and their decision-making.

Dont you think that our country and its citizens would be better off if our troops were defending our own borders, rather than infringing on another country's right to exist as it wishes by placing our troops there?

Senor Grommet · Post by **Senor Grommet** » 28 Sep 2004 17:47

Dbl post:

ALSO, when you say:
"Some men are unintelligent and uneducated and only understand one thing, violence."

It makes me think . . . hmmm . .. what did this man major in? Was he a math/science major who probably had to take no more than 2-3 Gen Ed classes and knows absolutely nothing about human nature? ( I am not discounting your personal experience however, which Im sure is more extensive than mine) What makes you think that you are more "educated" in the issues that matter (human nature) than someone who took 1 city college class in sociology?

Juan · Post by **Juan** » 28 Sep 2004 18:04

I havent developed a solid position on this issue, but im hesistent to adopt non-violence as a comprehensive political strategy. I dont think a powerful and oppressive groups will always ultimately concede power peacefully.

In all struggles for justice, including ones guided by non-violence, the threat of violence has played a key role in influencing the oppresor to spread power. For example, JFK initiated Civil Rights legislation because Black violence and rioting in the South had increased; not because of the growing Civil Rights movement which emphasized nonviolence. No doubt that the code and morality of non-violence of the Civil Rights movemt influenced its success, but JFK didnt move towards equality til violence threatened the racist establisment. I wouldnt be surprised if anti-British violence increased in India during the indepence movemnt, despite Gandhi's wishes.

Juan · Post by **Juan** » 28 Sep 2004 18:27

wolfpac444 wrote:
Tsiangkun wrote:I support our troops . . . I attack those who place the troops in these situations.
I don't agree with this view since it totally removes any responsibility and accountability from individuals. When it comes down to it, those who are participating in the war are making a personal decision that they feel it is acceptable to travel across the world and start killing people. I am not willing to let those in the military "off the hook" by calling them mere puppets -- I believe people are more than that.

These are both good points. Because the army is the most authoritarian structure possible, soldiers have no choice as to why, when, and where they go to war. At the same time, they do 'voluntarily' join the army. I just question to what extent do soldiers really 'choose' to join the army. The US infantry is generally composed of the poor and uneducated and minorities. For most these people, college or a trust fund is not an option, they see the military as the best means to gain training for a real life trade. I dont think they necessarily see killing as acceptable.

wolfpac444 · Post by **wolfpac444** » 28 Sep 2004 20:03

Juan wrote:These are both good points. Because the army is the most authoritarian structure possible, soldiers have no choice as to why, when, and where they go to war. At the same time, they do 'voluntarily' join the army. I just question to what extent do soldiers really 'choose' to join the army. The US infantry is generally composed of the poor and uneducated and minorities. For most these people, college or a trust fund is not an option, they see the military as the best means to gain training for a real life trade. I dont think they necessarily see killing as acceptable.

I agree that the military is one of the most authoritarian structures possible, but I don't believe that those within it are under complete control. If you believe in something strong enough, then no one can force you do anything you choose not to. Granted, there will be negative consequences in the military for not obeying orders, but that is something you ought to know beforehand. If an order was handed down to bomb a day care where children are located, shouldn't your own personal morality come into play? Isn't that something that people should say is "unacceptable" and refuse to do despite having orders come down from on high? Is there ever a point where people should not follow their on personal morals in deciding how to act?

I realize that a significant percentage of the US military are fall into the category of either poor, uneducated, or minorities. I convince myself that people who are going into military service do not understand what they are getting into. How much would I have to offer to pay you to kill another person? $100? $10,000? $100,000? We should be asking ourselves and others why this is even a choice that people have to be making. Despite not actually being in such a situtation, I do not feel that having had to make such a choice absolves them from the consequences of their actions.

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 28 Sep 2004 22:51

wolfpac444 wrote: How much would I have to offer to pay you to kill another person?

what if the question is being asked as , ' What would you do to keep your family safe ?' .

FlexThis · Post by **FlexThis** » 29 Sep 2004 07:30

Hilarious!!!

This reminds me of a recent commercial urging people to vote.

It shows a bunch of girls in a ladies restroom starring at a dripping faucet. "That's not right", one says, "someone should do something", another says. Meanwhile the crowd grows larger as they stare at the faucet pondering the right course of action. When suddenly a girl walks up and turns it off. End of commercial.

Sometimes you have to make the tough decisions without knowing all the facts in order to preserve our way of life. When I say our, I mean the United States of America. We as citizens can only vocie our opinions and pick delegation to make those decisions. Being human we make mistakes, but regardless a decision has to be made. In this case, violence (in the form of military action) was choosen.

I agree with you that the USA is viewed as the bully in this situation. That is unfortunate. It is also unfortunate, that the enemy in this case has gone guerilla. This is self-defeating for the USA. Since we declared an end to the war (a mistake in my opinion), we can not go after the infrastructure of the terrorists legally.

In order for the USA to win this war we must declare guerilla war and fight under those guidelines. As is, we look like tyrants flexing our muscles to win and unwinnable war or an invisible enemy labeled "terrorists". It is no different than the war on drugs, which we are losing also.

It is my belief that diplomacy in the face of a deposed leader and scattered governmental infrastructure has made for a disasterous cocktail. Smart bombs are only part of this disaster. I agree that innocent Iraqis killed in combat or as a byproduct of the war is wrong. No one wants to see innocent lives lost.

At the same time though, the terrorists/insurgents, whatever you want to call them, are not fighting fair and are using their own people as shields. Using historical mosques as bunkers, and taking hostages and beheading them.

I'm sorry but we (US Military) do not condone the beheading of anyone. Nor should of any of you condone such action. It is a barbaric act which in turn deserves justice. If that justice comes in the form of military action, then so be it.

I for one do not intend to stand around the sink pondering the best way to turn the handle. Support your troops whether you agree or not. Patriotism should be within your spirit. After all you were born here (US citizens people) and have the freedom to voice your opinions. But don't bite the hands that gave you those rights. That is unAmerican.

Oh and I have a BA degree, but I am not the educated persons in my argument. That would be our government. The uneducated would be those who choose to join terrorist organizations. Terrorist being those who train UNBACKED by any government that use such training to murder anyone. Terrorist being those who use barbaric tactics to murder. Barbaric being the public beheading of anyone.

Lastly,

What would you do to keep your family safe ?

Anything in my power including my own life. And I expect no less from the terrorists, which is why it is so important to continue the course and stand firm.