Supporting the Federation's finest.

[Nurizeko]

I dont support the war, I think we should bring our troops back, but I DO support our Troops with all my heart.

What do you guys think?

In an attempt to salvage Niftyeye's cause and regroup for a renewed offensive upon the analytical minds of GD, I bring you discussion on the current affairs of western conflict part 2.

My thoughts:

Spoiler

In modern developed societies most of us are far from danger from a foreign force, our homelands are relatively peaceful and prosperous. Should we accept that troops fight in our name for a cause we may or may not support?

I stated my position in the prior thread but suffice to say while I've never wished harm or disrespect upon men and women doing a hard job, neither have I felt compelled to wave a flag 'in support' of their efforts. I've often thought about serving myself but ultimately chose not to for the simple fact I have no interest fighting in conflicts that are of no real concern to the people of the UK. My motivation would be to defend the United Kingdom and the British people, and to help others yet modern Western warfare these days seems often to involve expeditionary warfare and drawn out conflicts that could have been avoided.

In a nut shell I feel that we needn't have been tied down to Afghanistan and especially Iraq which are huge commitments in all ways that the British (and I assume most Western people) people neither wanted or could afford, especially considering the financial climate. Likewise allot of those troops we support I feel are lost needlessly, causing avoidable grief to their surviving families.

Still, I am aware that my thoughts are my own, and everyone has their own understanding of the concept of support and reconciling it with their own opinions on our current conflicts.

What are your thoughts?

1. Should Western society 'support their troops'?

2. How does one 'support' them?

3. Can one reconcile being opposed to a conflict with supporting the armed forces efforts?

4. Where does support stop and military worship begin? Where does appreciating ones nation cease and blind pride start?

5. Is it justifiable for protesters to speak out within ear-shot of pro-war/troop activities?

So as to avoid a lock like the prior thread I would like it if folk could take time writing their responses, and try and avoid overly emotional and sound-bytish responses. If possible please elaborate, give everyone something to read beyond a single paragraph. I know the GD is capable of some pretty pleasant and thoughtful debate when in the mood so I am looking for some interesting discussion from you dolts.

[p0seidon]

I was up writing a thread about this as well, but honestly lad:
You're showing still being very biased with the subject.
May I ask you edit your post slightly to remove the "joking" aspect and the SST references?
Coming from the perspective of someone who's enlisting, I feel slightly insulted.

I'll just copy/paste the thread I was writing up here in it's entirety:

Ok, before we start discussing the bad and good sides of hero worshipping, patriotism and why people do such things.
There's a few ground rules:

-No talking about if a certain war is justified (You're more than welcome to start a thread about this subject if you're inclined to.)
-No blind hatred, if you want to voice your opinion, do so with style, not with severe hostility.
-No omnislashing.

_____

So the reason this thread was made is this:
http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=249312

The question that basically popped out is, why do people worship soldiers and certain other jobs too, like the paramedic, or the firefighter or the police officer?

After all, they are all just jobs? Some more dangerous than the other perhaps, but normal jobs nevertheless.
Perhaps the glorification comes from the fact it's a service to society?
Although some might debate this fact due to personal opinions.

During my time as a volunteer firefighter I've noticed hero worshipping myself, it can range from free food to people just blindly staring at you.
The other side of the spectrum is also there of course, people not understanding why you'd do a job like that: They will never understand it's to help people.

But the previous thread boiled down to a lot of blind hatred towards soldiers, not understanding why you'd do that job, to assuming everyone in the military is a murderer. (Whilst I do not deny that you're basically taught how to kill if you're in the infantry, there's a difference between murder, and protecting someone, be it a civilian, or the soldier next to you.)
Part of the worship comes from because they're prepared to "fight" for the people in your country, whilst not every nation is really at risk any more like on the scale of WW2 depending on where you live, it's still an integral part of your own safety.
And perhaps the most beautiful part of the job, you can go out and help someone in a place where red cross members can only dream about because it's too dangerous, perhaps that is a form of heroism?
Being prepared to go somewhere and risk your own life to save someone else.

But what strikes me sometimes that if let's say.. a civilian rescues someone from a car wreck (bit of an off-topic tip here, don't ever do that, too dangerous for the victim if an untrained person tries to "save" you) he's a hero, same thing will be said about firefighters, but not with the soldier, because it'll be his/her job.
But they'll have pulled the exact same stunt saving someone else's live, a better example would be:
If someone steps on a landmine, and another soldier risks his own life to drag the person (dead or alive? doesn't matter) out of the minefield, that's a heroic action, just as heroic as helping out at the car accident or something simple as helping an old person across the street.

So what I'm curious towards, what is the thing that defines someone as a hero to you specifically?
And what do you think about hero worshipping in general?

And to close my tale:

"Nobody asks to be a hero, it just sometimes turns out that way."

[Vaarok]

There's, generally, a mental disconnect between "this can't be happening!" and "this is happening, I will do something", and society rewards the people who by natural inclination or training overcome the freeze instinct to act for the benefit of the herd.

[LoCo]

Lefty: Since the OP was edited before I could see what exactly you found so offensive, perhaps you could edit your post to be less offensive too?

You come right out of left field with little gems like:

"The other side of the spectrum is also there of course, people not understanding why you'd do a job like that: They will never understand it's to help people."

Never? That implies it is beyond their comprehension which means that you are already saying you are better than them. That's kind of offensive to those who do understand your reasons for doing it, yet don't think the reasons are either good enough or justify the methods.

You further go on to imply that everyone not in the armed forces is basically "chicken" because they aren't "prepared to fight for their country". This is blatantly false and extremely insulting. What about the civilian who doesn't want to join up, but saves babies from burning buildings, or stops a mugging?

Today, many people believe that the wars "we" fight are unjustified and as such, joining the military would be seen as an act of support for the military and by association the "unjust" wars. Thus, they do not "support" the troops because they are of the opinion that the troops support the unjust war. After all, if they didn't "support the war", they wouldn't be joining up because they know that joining the military means they are going to go into a war that is "unjustified".

It has nothing to do with "being prepared to defend" anything. It's got nothing to do with bravery, being a coward, or wanting to help people. It is about morality and personal opinion.

This is why these kinds of debates often end in flaming, because Side A keeps trying to make it about "heroics" while Side B is insulted that Side A is implying they are cowards, and trying to say it isn't about "heroics". Yet Side A already feels they have won because, hey, who needs to listen to the cowards?

Each side is convinced that they have the moral high ground, and neither side listens to the other. Side A won't listen to the cowards, and Side B won't listen to those insulting them.

The point of contention, and the key to actually discussing this, is that both sides need to stop using snide remarks and self-righteous phrases.

The fact that you saw "blind hatred" in the previous thread tells me that you already feel antagonistic towards those with the opposite view to you. That thread seemed rather placid to me, and the reason - that I can see - it got locked was because it was an ill-informed ramble from the start and then moved on to omnislashing.

I see no difference in different heroic acts. A firefighter pulling someone from a burning building, a police officer catching a burglar, a soldier pulling a buddy from a minefield, a paramedic helping someone in the middle of a gunfight, a stranger saving someone from a train.

Those are all heroic acts. Those that perform those acts are heroes. Yet, not every police officer is a hero, not every paramedic is a hero, not every firefighter is a hero, not every stranger is a hero, and not every soldier is a hero.

So soldiers do a dangerous job, so what? Oil drilling is a dangerous job. Extreme sports guides do a dangerous job. We don't call all of them heroes. There are many people all over the world who do dangerous jobs, but only when one of them performs a heroic action are they called heroes.

Further, as mentioned previously, since many people believe that someone choosing to be a soldier holds some kind of support for the wars they will be engaged in, they are at least partly to blame for the wars. And since these people believe the wars are "unjust", anyone choosing to become a soldier in today's world is siding with the "unjust".

The thinking is that if all the people who did not support the wars yet still signed up to fight in them, were to quit ... those wars would not be able to be fought and a better solution could be found. But because those people who apparently are against the wars but still - for some reason - sign up to fight in them are continuing to sign up and continuing to fight in wars they feel are unjust, they are perpetuating a cycle of unjust wars. That is seen as support for those "unjust" wars.

So if you "support the troops", it could quite logically be argued, you are also in support of the wars those troops fight in. Including the "unjust" ones.

As for "hero worship" ... I'll go back to earlier points. As you yourself quoted "Nobody asks to be a hero, it just sometimes turns out that way" ... The implication being that a job - however dangerous it may be - does not automatically make you heroic.

Thus, soldiers are not heroic. People are.

As such, it is not acceptable to call someone a hero because of their occupation. It is their actions.

In relation to soldiers, one must also look at the motivation. If they are in support of an unjust war, their actions are already tainted. For example, do you consider Japanese war heroes from WW2 to be heroic? How about the Vietnamese war heroes? Or more recently, Iraqi war heroes?

Does their "side" in the conflict make them any less heroic? How about a terrorist who pulls his buddy out of the line of fire while American/British troops are firing at them? Is that a heroic action? Do you venerate them any more or less than "heroes" from your "side" of the conflict?

If, like me, you believe that the current wars are "unjust", then how can I venerate someone who actively supports such a war by taking part in it? The simple answer is that I can not venerate such a person. Thus, I do not "support the troops".

*EDIT* and aahh, Lefty? Don't call me "lad" if you respond. I'm likely not to take too kindly to that. It smacks of condescension, and if I were Nurizeko I'd be insulted by someone younger than me referring to me as such. Just saying, for someone complaining about other people keeping their posts clean, it would help a lot for you to do the same.

Vaarok: Perhaps you had better define "benefit of the herd". Because there is a lot of ambiguity in such a statement as "benefit" is very, very subjective particularly when talking about the current conflicts in the world.

[SquidDNA]

Lefty, I think many people see that there's an inherent contradiction between the notion of defense and our current troop deployment. While it's all good and well to say that killing people is about protecting your buddy, it's hard to justify protecting your buddy when you and your buddies have traveled halfway around the world to a place where people are shooting at them.

On the other hand, it is fitting that there are people willing to do what our governments tell them to. It's a tremendous advantage in the world to have a military at all. Without one, a nation is going to get shoved around by those that do-- it's just the way of things, and so I think it's reasonable there's a basic amount of gratitude people should have for that.

Also, yeah, this thread is pretty much going to get locked if people Lefty and LoCo don't cool it.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Speaking as an Australian, the very idea that our army exists for "defense" is a joke. We're an essentially impregnable country. No land borders, a long way from anyone particularly big or nasty, and with major population centers seperated by miles and miles of fairly inhospitable desert. Few countries could even physically GET an army here. And those that could would either be stopped just as adequately by our navy, airforce, and a volunteer militia, or are sufficiently powerful that they would run roughshod over our standing army anyway. Our geography and allies defend us infinitely better than our army does, and considering Britain shares much of those advantages I'd expect the same is true there.

What the Australian Army is for is offensive action. Pure and simple. Oh and I guess the odd bit of token peacekeeping. I'm not necessarily disputing that that's sometimes necessary but I do wish it would stop being called "defending our country" or "fighting for our people" when it's just the same old story of profiting at someone else's expense via the application of force.

Oh and logistics soldiers are no less culpable for deaths than frontline combat soldiers. The former enables the latter to do their job after all.

[p0seidon]

Lefty: Since the OP was edited before I could see what exactly you found so offensive, perhaps you could edit your post to be less offensive too?

The offensive bits are still there, I'm referring to the amazing Starship Troopers references which are basically implying we're all just part of the Mobile Infantry gearing up, ready to kill .

But I have noticed both of us are at the opposite side of the spectrum, you're taking these things very personal, which is good too.
My views are due that I come from a family of soldiers and resistance fighters, so it's certainly changing my opinions about certain things.

I don't really believe that people who don't fight are cowards, some of us are just more willing to fight for what they believe in, others give up hope more easily.
Does not mean they're less of a person or capable of doing something heroic.

I'm going to be bold and state I've seen more shit and saved more people in the past 3 years than most people have in their entire lives, only because I choose to do so.
Doesn't make me any more of a man than my neighbour, who has a desk job.
Nor does it make me feel superior to you, loco.

Western warfare these days seems often to involve expeditionary warfare and drawn out conflicts that could have been avoided.

Thing is with expeditionary warfare, the entire idea about it is that if you create peace in hostile territories, you'll have peace in your own territory.
This can be argued right now seeing we are fighting an ideal with Al Qaeda, not a physical entity. (Hence it's rather difficult to.. eradicate it so to speak.)

No one ever said Afghanistan was going to be a short term project, nor will it be, I am expecting for NATO to still be there for another decade, and is it worth it? Absolutely.
Perhaps not in the eyes of the tax payer, who will be safely sit in his/her comfortable house thousands of miles away.
But the fact children and especially girls can finally go to school there without fear of being murdered? That people can actually starting to enjoy some of the things we see as normal here, like watching tv or listening to the radio.
Or reading something simple as a newspaper without risk.

To me, that's why it's worth it.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

Al Qaeda became a problem because of Western meddling in the middle east. You're not going to solve it with Western meddling in the middle east. What right does your country have to tell people a world away how they should live?

[mololu]

Most likely none.

However the powerful meddle in the affairs of others, it's a trend we've seen since the beginning of history. What makes you think it will change over night?

Since people have become 'enlightened' there have been just as many terrible wars as there were before. The weapons just get worse.

More on topic, I find this is terribly hard to debate. Do I stand for the man or woman who's risking his life? Sure, I have respect for someone who can do that.
Doesn't mean I respect the cause though or the reason they're there.

I think we should support our troops. I'm american and while I live away from the states and often question the military actions of the country, that does not mean I don't support the actions of the men who serve in them.

The debate shouldn't be: Are our military 'politics' (for lack of a better term) justified and I don't think that's the topic of this thread either - and thus should be taken somewhere else.

It's more: Do I support the men and women of the armed services despite crooked politics? And to that I'd answer yes.

Not sure I managed to make my point, hope this made sense.

[SquidDNA]

I'm calling it: let's not have a thread about the war, but rather a thread about the nature of war and more specifically how citizens relate to warriors, as this was Nuri's intent.

Perhaps a spinoff thread about what Lefty is saying here about fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here, etc.

[Homdax]

1. Should Western society 'support their troops'?

Yes

2. How does one 'support' them?

By joining or by other relevant means such as volunteer work or other efforts.

3. Can one reconcile being opposed to a conflict with supporting the armed forces efforts?

Generally speaking, if you are prepared to support your armed forces, you are pretty likely to also support whatever they are doing.

4. Where does support stop and military worship begin? Where does appreciating ones nation cease and blind pride start?

That would probably require a personal approach to answer those questions, I think it is up to one self, what one think of those limits, if any. I would venture that military worship might be such when people start thinking of the military as an obvious, if not only, career choice for their children.

5. Is it justifiable for protesters to speak out within ear-shot of pro-war/troop activities?

Yes. Its called freedom of speech.

[SquidDNA]

It's possible to love someone without liking them; it's possible to be grateful that we have soldiers while disapproving of their actions.

[Dark_Axel]

1. Should Western society 'support their troops'?

Yes, since they are part of our goverment which supports and protect our rights.

2. How does one 'support' them?

By treating them with the respect and dignity which they have earned during their service. Even though we might not always like what they were asked to do or did.

3. Can one reconcile being opposed to a conflict with supporting the armed forces efforts?

I can support the manner in which the military carries out their mission (example: keeping civilians out of the conflict and fight with restraint). But I might not support the political establishment who gave them that mission.

4. Where does support stop and military worship begin? Where does appreciating ones nation cease and blind pride start?

When critical thinking of the reasons behind the mission is considered to be treacherous by the pro-war establishment. Which in turn would endanger and limit the freedom of speech.

5. Is it justifiable for protesters to speak out within ear-shot of pro-war/troop activities?

Within the political establishment that supports their mission (infront of goverment landmarks/parlements), definitly yes since it is part of our freedom of speech. Protesting against the military directly is in my opinion useless when they are just carrying out their orders, unless they themselves are showing signs of bad conduct in their mission.

[Homdax]

Well their actions are not always their to control.

[mattman1991]

Lefty:Why is it everyone on this forum thinks 'bias' is bad? Or that it is something that we should avoid. If you have an opinion, or thought, odds are its bias. Discussion stems from these opinions whcih are not 100% right. If a thread is closed (MOE) because its 'bias', why is it in General Discussion?


Anyways, surely these soldiers fighting for our freedom, (yes, the farmers of Afghanistan, who do not want these western invaders in their country, are planning to launch an invaision of the Western World, to impose their dirty ideas and morals upon us (HORROR)) allow us to say such things. I may not agree with criticism of soldiers fighthing, I would agree on criticism of the war and the planners of the war.

[Noble]

I think the hero worship of soldiers has a lot to do with people reconciling their inaction with their zealous nationalism. I can be a war-hawk on my blog and around the water cooler at work and the fact that I've never considered entering the military myself doesn't matter because of the bumper sticker on my car proclaiming my support for the troops.

I don't think soldiering automatically grants a person respectability. There are bad people who soldier. There are bad people who work as police officers or firefighters. There are many good people who do these jobs too. Your job title, no matter what it is, does not make you a respectable person. Your actions do, and the actions of a soldier are not necessarily something that I'm going to praise.

[LoCo]

Homdax: Why should Western society 'support their troops'?

Dark_Axel: Could you clarify this for me:

By treating them with the respect and dignity which they have earned during their service. Even though we might not always like what they were asked to do or did.

That was your answer to the second question. How exactly did they "earn" respect? Did all of them earn it? Even the ones who did very bad things? Are we to automatically respect them simply because of their chosen occupation despite the bad things they have done? How does that apply to civilians? If a bank robber saves a child from getting hit by a car, should he be exonerated and hailed as a hero? What if his crime is more serious? How about rape? Murder? Does his one heroic act cleanse him of past wrong doing? Is he a hero? Is he someone to look up to?

If I were to answer the above questions, I'd say that he is not a hero. He should not be looked up to. I'd say that his heroic act should be held up, but not the man himself.

I'd like to ask that before we go further we clear up a matter that is likely to become a sticking point later. Many of the horrible acts committed by soldiers are often shrugged off with lines like "They were following orders". Can we all agree that lines like that are not acceptable? It justifies nothing, the only thing it does is clouds the issue without ever addressing it. If it is not acceptable to agree that lines like that are banned, then could we hash it out until there is consensus so that it doesn't come up later and disrupt discussion?

As for my answers:

1. Should Western society 'support their troops'?

I don't think it is a requirement, nor do I think it should be. It is possible that a positive answer to this could be construed as wanting to force people to think in a certain manner. Further, one must consider that at some point "supporting the troops" could very well mean support of something completely against one's morality.

2. How does one 'support' them?

I believe that this question is null due to the answer above. However, I would consider "support" to mean anything from contributing time/effort/money to charity work, vocal praise and assurances of good will, and other methods of encouragement and approval.

3. Can one reconcile being opposed to a conflict with supporting the armed forces efforts?

I do not believe so. I believe that since those in the armed forces chose for themselves to be in the armed forces, they have shown that they support whatever conflicts are happening. I believe that if they do not wish to support a conflict that they should withdraw themselves from the armed forces. If they choose to stay on, they are effectively supporting the conflict. Guilt by association if you will.

I believe that the decision to join the armed forces is made with full awareness to the fact that there is the potential for disreputable orders to be given. As such, joining up is an acknowledgeable of this fact. In making said choice they acquiesce and choose to obey orders that they might find questionable. Thus they are culpable for their actions and not able to claim the defence of "I was just following orders". If at any time they disagree with the orders given to them, I believe they should disobey. If they do not, they are, once again, culpable.

4. Where does support stop and military worship begin? Where does appreciating ones nation cease and blind pride start?

It begins when one considers "military service" to be synonymous with "heroic". Blind pride starts when one starts to discount the "bad" while pointing out the "good".

5. Is it justifiable for protesters to speak out within ear-shot of pro-war/troop activities?

I believe it is not only justified, but it is essential. Likewise, I would encourage the opposite to happen. Perhaps then both sides might learn from each other.

*EDIT*: Lefty, I don't see the references, though I haven't read the book for some time.

Also, it would be hard for anyone to feel or be superior to me since I am, obviously, awesome.

[MardiGrasBandit]

A lot of anti-military sentiment and conflict apathy stems from much of the populations' general disconnect with current conflicts and poor understanding of the international political system. Like it or not, the globalized world we live in largely came about and arguably still exists because the United States was ready to steam roll anyone who interfered with its desired international norm too dramatically. Freedom of the seas, cheap oil, and small militaries in most of the developed world are to all in part the products of US power. It's allowed a world of peace and plenty exist for decades now, but it has also created a world that can seem full of paradoxes and hypocrisy.

For people who have spent the bulk of their lives in such a world, which I'd assume includes most of this forum and nearly all the college age protest crowd, it becomes easy to lose perspective on why it exists as it does. Why have a strong (or any) military if the world is largely peaceful? Why fight against some third world bandits whose connection to our lives is difficult to comprehend? Why can we have nukes, but they can't? For people without much interest in global politics, it's easy not care too much about distant wars. For interested people who've come to the wrong conclusions, it's easy to sympathize with the other side.

My favorite quote I've seen about the war on terror, or whatever you want to call it, is this: America isn't at war. The Army and the Marines are at war. America is at the mall.

We have been at war for most of the past decade, but unless you are in the military or close to someone who is, the only thing it has really affected in your news coverage. At this point, I'd guess a good portion of non-military younger people are apathetic or negative on the wars. At the same time, there is a huge market for surrogate war products that ignores political boundaries. Hurt Locker got best picture to make anti-war Hollywood types feel better. Airsoft nerds dress like Soldiers and spend hundreds on glorified Nerf guns. Modern Warfare 2 made how many hundreds of millions the weekend it came out? Sure, all those things are fun, but I'd be willing to bet their popularity is also an symptom of a population simultaneously very focused on war and totally disconnected from it.

Anyway, the questions:

1. Should Western society 'support their troops'?

They should, but they shouldn't have to. If one doesn't, they should direct their criticism at the politicians who start wars, not the service members who fight them.

2. How does one 'support' them?

Join. Donate to charities that support military personnel and families. Say thanks in the airport. Don't support (via voting, money, silly facebook pages, shady Lancet articles, etc) groups or individuals that are hostile to the military or it's campaigns.

3. Can one reconcile being opposed to a conflict with supporting the armed forces efforts?

Sure, people can reconcile anything. That doesn't mean they are right. The vocal war protester who "supports the troops, but not the mission" is still a useful idiot who drains morale, bolsters the enemy, and helps his countrymen die.

4. Where does support stop and military worship begin? Where does appreciating ones nation cease and blind pride start?

This one is a two edged sword. Clamoring for politicians to pick senseless battles because they can smacks of the worst human traditions we have only recently abandoned, but one man's senseless battle is another justifiable cause. Nationalism for the sake of nationalism is stupid, but so is the baseless transnationalism that leads so many to apathy or negativity. As ridiculous as it can be to assert the absolute rightness of your own way of life, the assumption that peoples of other cultures a world away from your own want to be friends with you is just as bad.

5. Is it justifiable for protesters to speak out within ear-shot of pro-war/troop activities?

Sure, since again, people can justify anything to themselves. Does that mean it's polite? Depends of the circumstances. Opposing protesters on opposite street corners vying for car horns is a world away from that protest in the UK that inspired this thread.

[p0seidon]

I do not believe so. I believe that since those in the armed forces chose for themselves to be in the armed forces, they have shown that they support whatever conflicts are happening. I believe that if they do not wish to support a conflict that they should withdraw themselves from the armed forces. If they choose to stay on, they are effectively supporting the conflict. Guilt by association if you will.

I believe that the decision to join the armed forces is made with full awareness to the fact that there is the potential for disreputable orders to be given. As such, joining up is an acknowledgeable of this fact. In making said choice they acquiesce and choose to obey orders that they might find questionable. Thus they are culpable for their actions and not able to claim the defence of "I was just following orders". If at any time they disagree with the orders given to them, I believe they should disobey. If they do not, they are, once again, culpable.

Problem with disobeying orders is that it's a crime more or less, the grunt is not paid to think out loud, you'll be amazed how many people are enlisting for money, to get away from life (Why do you think the French Foreign Legion is still popular? , those people ARE thugs though, you won't see me denying that.) or lots of other silly reasons, that aren't always about serving your nation to fight.

And deserting.. that really is a crime, you can't just get up and leave, you signed a contract.
Not everyone agrees with their superiors if they're going to fight in a war, but you just shut up and do what you are told (Crude response would be, it's above your paygrade to make decisions like that.)
It's not worth it to get thrown into jail if you disagree, you're not forced to sign up again when your contract ends.

EDIT:

*EDIT*: Lefty, I don't see the references, though I haven't read the book for some time. Also, it would be hard for anyone to feel or be superior to me since I am, obviously, awesome.

It's the topic title and the little image at the bottom , heading to an infantry MOS myself.. so hence the reason I may also be severely biased.

[Dark_Axel]

By treating them with the respect and dignity which they have earned during their service. Even though we might not always like what they were asked to do or did.

That was your answer to the second question. How exactly did they "earn" respect? Did all of them earn it? Even the ones who did very bad things? Are we to automatically respect them simply because of their chosen occupation despite the bad things they have done? How does that apply to civilians? If a bank robber saves a child from getting hit by a car, should he be exonerated and hailed as a hero? What if his crime is more serious? How about rape? Murder? Does his one heroic act cleanse him of past wrong doing? Is he a hero? Is he someone to look up to?

If I were to answer the above questions, I'd say that he is not a hero. He should not be looked up to. I'd say that his heroic act should be held up, but not the man himself.

For clarification, I do not mean you should place them on a special pedestal (or call them a hero). I merely meant that you should at least give these people the benefit of the doubt and treat them at least like anyone else, and don't start pissing them off before you know them because they wear a medal of Operation Srebrenica for instance (Dutch operation which ended badly).
I would only really consider the use of proper respect if they do not boast about their 'war stories'. That usually shows that they aren't really that proud of what they had to do. This shows their conscience and in my book, that at least means they are allright. This means they do realize that certain things were "not normal" at that time.

In the end, it's the same kind of respect you would give to any random member of the emergency services. You don't know who he is, you don't know what he has done in the past, but you do know that they are supposed to help you out when you need them.

In essence I would agree with the statement that a man is defined by his actions (be it good and/or bad) and not a single act. That also means you should not define a man just by the military operations he took part off.

[Noble]

Sure, people can reconcile anything. That doesn't mean they are right. The vocal war protester who "supports the troops, but not the mission" is still a useful idiot who drains morale, bolsters the enemy, and helps his countrymen die.

So by your estimation anti-war protests are treasonous?

[Moe]

There are objective reasons for admiring or worshipping soldiers. Generally speaking their pay isn't the best, and their job is inherently dangerous - and often times boring as shit. If society were to demonize soldiers, or treat them like they treat any other person, a lot less people would be motivated to sign up. However, if you put soldiers on a pedestal, call them heroes - well that might just motivate a few people to go join the military. A nice, if somewhat extreme, example of this is troop worship in Nazi Germany, especially towards the end of the war.

It becomes even more effective the more people are in on it, if everyone recognizes the troops as heroes it's more meaningful than if a handful of politicians do so. And so you try to create an atmosphere where supporting the troops is the accepted norm, and where speaking out against the troops puts you on shaky moral ground. The majority of people who are against the war will hasten to add that they support the troops - whatever the hell that means.

[absauston]

Is it justifiable for protesters to speak out within ear-shot of pro-war/troop activities?

First off I want to say that that I do not condone protesters opinions. However I do not agree with how they go about voicing their opinions in certain situations. What I consider a "troop activity" is a funeral. I attended a military funeral several years ago and just outside there were protesters shouting their anti-war messages and I even heard a few say they were glad to see the soldier dead. So... to answer the question I guess it depends on the situation, those assholes protesting outside of a funeral crossed the line and should have been removed.

[Rincewind]

1. Should Western society 'support their troops'?

Depends on what they are doing. A good man doing an evil thing is doing an evil thing, not being a good man.

2. How does one 'support' them?

The term itself is iffy. See #4.

3. Can one reconcile being opposed to a conflict with supporting the armed forces efforts?

Sort of. Most professional soldiers don't get a say in where they are sent and most of the time only time will tell if a campaign was justified or not, but in situations where its obviously immoral (the US support of bloody dicatorships in a number of small countries, for example, or the recent Russian invasion of Georgia, or the People's Liberation Army liberating the protesters at Tianmeng of their lives) there is no excuse.

4. Where does support stop and military worship begin? Where does appreciating ones nation cease and blind pride start?

The US is a wonderful example of blind worship while Europe is a good example of the other. Finnish soldiers keeping the peace all around the world won't have to buy many drinks at the pub after they return from their tour and they'll get some pats on the back, but only for the first week or so after they return.

5. Is it justifiable for protesters to speak out within ear-shot of pro-war/troop activities?

The right to say whatever you want, whereever you want and whenver you want is more important than the hurt feelings of a dead soldiers family, unpleasant as that may be.

[Trinity]

Dutch operation which ended badly

The operation didn't end badly for the Dutch. It ended badly for those the Dutch left behind.

[p0seidon]

The operation didn't end badly for the Dutch. It ended badly for those the Dutch left behind.

I feel like slightly going off topic here, we did not want to leave those people behind, some idiot at NATO command decided it was an amazing idea to let the serbs steam roll the people there, and air support was denied.
It resulted in a lot of soldiers with PTSD for example, back in a day when psychological support wasn't as big as a thing as nowadays.

This is also a thing that is severely underestimated with the military, the risk of getting PTSD is far, far higher than with civilians or other jobs.
The excuse "it's part of the job" doesn't work with this any more.
That may be one of the few things that DO demand respect for them, it's almost impossible to get through without some psychological scarring if you're in a combat role, or combat support like the Combat Engineers.
I don't really count people here who are stuck on a base, their job is incredibly important, but the risk is 0.

This basically explains it all more or less:

[Dark_Axel]

I'm sorry if I sounded impartial, Trinity.
The real victims are the Bosnian who where deported and massacred by the Serbs. But Lefty understands what I mean; the outcome of the mission was bad because of choices made by politicians and the military NATO command. The Dutch soldiers can't be held accountable for that failure, only their own personal actions (and that can vary individually).

[Sabulum]

Here in America, its also got a historical aspect thanks to the Vietnam war. We sent in hundreds of thousands of young people who were drafted into a living hell and then treated them like shit when they came back (the iconic spitting on troops in airports). Lots of psychological problems, not very good veteran care, etc... all led to a pretty deplorable state of affairs for soldiers that didn't want to be in Vietnam in the first place.

That's what it means when politicians and regular people go, "support our troops" mostly here in the states. There are people willing to die/give up years of their life for my way of life, and I can't imagine not respecting them for it, even if I completely disagree with the war they're in. Someone more cynical can scoff at it nowadays, but comparing how soldiers were/are treated in two wars (Vietnam and Iraq) that are both deeply unpopular shows just how important that sentiment is.

[Elukka]

I think there's a bit of a difference when you're forced to a war compared to when you voluntarily serve knowing full well what sort of conflict you'll be supporting, though.
If I don't support a war I don't see why I should support the people who choose to fight it.

[Sabulum]

You seriously think that everyone in the military fully supports the war and joined up to support the war? Or that you can't support people doing a dangerous job/giving up years of their life to help out your country regardless of the cause? That's loving retarded, pardon my french. That's like saying you don't support anyone in your country because everyone pays taxes which fund the military.

[Elukka]

Joining the military and actually fighting the war is basically the strongest support you can give it. It doesn't make much of a difference whether or not you support it on an ideological level if you're doing the most you can to support it on a practical level.

I don't know why I'm supposed to support someone for giving up years of their life for a cause I don't agree with it, or just because it's dangerous. The Taleban insurgents give up years of their life for their cause too and have a very dangerous job but that doesn't gain them any support from me.

[Sabulum]

Who said anything about supporting soldiers of another country? Unless you're trying to place the United States Army and its Western counterparts on the level of the Taliban, in which case this thread is pretty much moot as that's a completely ridiculous claim.

People join the military for lots of reasons. I know people in uniform that don't agree with the war in Iraq/Afghanistan, which is not exactly a far-fetched claim. Them being in the army demands a certain level of respect and decency just like firefighters and police officers do. The grunts at the bottom have nothing to do with policy or direction of the war and I can't imagine how insulting them or spitting on them for what they've done because of that could be construed as acceptable.

[p0seidon]

Elukka, we don't live in a perfect world, people join for a variety of reasons, some of them actually being poverty, shitty home situations, just wanting to escape something, or quite simply: they're joining for the weapons and such (Last one is really retarded, but I've seen it happen back at army selection.)

I'm joining up for several reasons, one being, I won't hide it: I love watching things go boom. Plain and simple.
But I am also still a firm believer of that there's still some good left in this world and that no matter the case, it is worth fighting for, even if it'll be far away from our home, I simply do not believe we have the right to close our eyes and look the other way whilst innocent people get butchered, we as modern western nations have the power to change and influence things, doesn't have to be by force.
Humanitarian aid is a very BIG and often overlooked factor of military operations.
You can actually do a lot of good work with it, and I want to be part of it.
Perhaps someday I'll get to look back at my life if I survive it all, that I did good.
Not everyone may agree with it, so be it.

I'm still not really a big supporter of the war in iraq, and certainly NOT a fan of the cluster fuck we may be entering called Somalia.
But if I've signed a contract by then? I won't have to agree with it, but if I have to go there, I'll go and do a job, plain and simple.
Doesn't mean I have to agree, but you have a responsibility, you can't just walk away like with any desk job. (has good and bad sides, job security is a plus, hence why so many people will enlist for that)

[LoCo]

Lefty: But you know that by signing that contract you may have to fight in a war you find unjust. Hence, by signing you are accepting that you will fight in a war you find unjust. You make a choice when you sign up. That choice means that whatever happens next, you are partly responsible for and have given your permission for.

The Military often traps people like that. The contracts written up are like contracts everywhere. There are clauses and devastating trip-ups. You think you are signing for a few years, they have ways of making it double, triple. Many enlisted personal were told that they would never see combat, that they were purely logistics and would not leave US soil. When training was done, they get handed their new orders ... over-seas. It is the contracts that allow that kind of shit to happen.

By signing it, you allow it to happen. You are right in that you have a responsibility, but it is to yourself. You KNOW there is a real possibility, and a high one, that you will be sent into a war you find unjust. Knowing that you have a responsibility to make a choice. Either disregard your ethical and moral code and sign up, or keep it and still be your own person.

Now, and I want to be clear here, you can think you are signing up to uphold a higher moral/ethical code, but signing up does not absolve you of your previous choice. From that point on, you are complicit and in support of whatever cause you are told to fight for. You made your choice when you joined up.

You can't use the "I can't back out, I signed a contract" as an excuse. You chose to sign the contract. There is always a choice. If you don't know the implications of your choices, it is mostly your own fault, though in this case those contracts are so bizarre that it's understandable so many people can't understand the full extent of what they are signing away. But that still doesn't absolve them. They had a choice, and they made it. Whatever happens after is a consequence of that choice.

Sabulum: You posed the idea that we should respect those who dedicate many years of their lives to doing a dangerous job. The Taliban are people who dedicate many years of their lives to doing a dangerous job.

Perhaps you could try to clarify rather than get upset?

Them being in the army demands a certain level of respect and decency just like firefighters and police officers do. The grunts at the bottom have nothing to do with policy or direction of the war and I can't imagine how insulting them or spitting on them for what they've done because of that could be construed as acceptable.

Why does them being in the army demand anything? Why does being a firefighter or a police officer demand anything? If you are talking about not spitting on people ... you don't need to be in the military or the fire/police department to garner enough respect for that. That kind of respect should be levelled at ALL people, irrespective of their job. So are you saying that being in the military means they are still people and deserving of the respect we show anyone else? Well ... yeah. I doubt you are going to find any argument here.

But what it looks like you are saying is that those in the military deserve more respect than the average person. If that is what you are saying, then you will find argument.

So which are you saying?

[absauston]

But what it looks like you are saying is that those in the military deserve more respect than the average person.

The problem is whether you like it or not any government today cannot survive without an army, because of the crazy dictators and terrorists. In the case of the U.S. we have had our hands so far up other countries asses that we cannot afford to go without an army. So for the people who have signed up or in the case of the Vietnam war been drafted, they deserve more respect than the average person.

[LoCo]

So they deserve respect because we can't do without them?

What about all the other people who are in professions we have come to rely on to the point where our lives would change drastically for the worse if we didn't have them?

IT people? Sewage workers? Rubbish collectors?

Are these people not worthy of the same respect you give to military personal?

We need these people just as much, possibly even more, than we need military personal. There are many, many more professions like those that if they weren't there, it wouldn't matter if you had a military because nobody would care, you'd be living like poorer African nations which means you got bigger problems than making more enemies to defend against.

[Sabulum]

Why does them being in the army demand anything? Why does being a firefighter or a police officer demand anything? If you are talking about not spitting on people ... you don't need to be in the military or the fire/police department to garner enough respect for that. That kind of respect should be levelled at ALL people, irrespective of their job. So are you saying that being in the military means they are still people and deserving of the respect we show anyone else? Well ... yeah. I doubt you are going to find any argument here.

But that's what us Americans mean when we say, "support the troops!" nowadays. We're contrasting the way we treat soldiers now with post Vietnam. I don't think anyone here is saying that soldiers should be treated like a higher class of citizen or even that they should never have to pay for a beer again. It's just realizing that soldiers are a separate entity from the war they're fighting, and shouldn't be treated unfairly or denigrated for fighting in it (which has happened). So if you agree with that, then there's not really a debate here, but saying that you don't support the war and that you can't conceptualize soldiers as being apart from that war implies that you're treating soldiers differently than you would anyone else or that you're protesting against the soldiers in some way shape or form.

To go a bit further than that, supporting the troops means appropriately funding the veteran's affairs office, making sure they have good body armor and other protection even if its not economically efficient to do so, and other things. Society is asking these people to put themselves in harm's way for it, and should reimburse them for that.

People performing a dangerous public service should be respected for that. It's not easy and a lot of people go into it for their own sense of duty that society as a whole needs to foster. From a realist perspective, society pays these men and women respect in lieu of cold hard cash.

[LoCo]

I don't think that's what it means at all. At least, I don't think that's what all Americans think when they say "support the troops". Sure, it could be what you mean, but I'd be careful speaking for the rest of America if I were you.

I do, actually, treat soldiers differently. As I've stated before I don't support them because I believe they are complicit in the unjust wars they are in simply because they chose to be there. That choice shows their support. I treat soldiers the same way in which I treat all supporters of a war I believe to be unjust. It has nothing to do with them being soldiers though, I treat them different because I believe they support an unjust war.

If a soldier sends me a letter from Iraq and tells me he doesn't support the war he is in, I would not believe him. The only way for me to believe him would be if he got out. As long as he is still there he is showing his support, or at the very, very least he is showing is apathy about it. Yet his actions are still in support of it. Thus, he supports.

I do not protest against soldiers. I protest the unjust wars. Soldiers are a part of that war. To try and make it specific and say I'm against soldiers is to miss the point completely.

Further, I have not asked anyone to put themselves in harms way for a cause I do not believe in. I certainly have not asked them to do it for me. Society has not asked these people to do it either. Once again you are trying to speak for the whole. From what I understand, society is rather divided on the subject. Hence we have little debates like this.

As for sending money so that the troops can get better gear ... You are talking about the US military. If they aren't taking care of their own after all the money they already take from the American public, then there is much more wrong than simply starting unjust wars. Further, if I were to help them out and send money along, I'd be complicit in aiding them. That is support. That is support for the unjust war. I do not wish to support an unjust war. Better geared soldiers are more likely to win, I don't want them to win. I don't think they should be there in the first place. If they are under geared, then they should come home. Problem solved.

Again, you are speaking for the whole. It is not a public service. If they were only defending, then it would be a public service. The general public gains nothing. If a waitress brought you a coke when you asked for a coffee and then charged you extra for it as well and told you that you better drink it up or she will punch you with a spiked gauntlet ... that's not service either.

IF the military didn't start unjust wars, then I could agree with you that society should foster the idea of joining up to defend a nation. However, that is not the case in today's world. In today's world, these men and women make a choice to support unjust wars. I don't think I need to pay them anything for that.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

The problem is whether you like it or not any government today cannot survive without an army, because of the crazy dictators and terrorists.

Dictators usually aren't a threat beyond their immediate neighbours, and terrorism is a job for Counter Intelligence, not the Army.

[Sabulum]

I don't want to omnislash, but I'm trying to make sure you're getting where specifically I have questions or comments.

I don't think that's what it means at all.

I do, actually, treat soldiers differently.

Can you elaborate on these? I think my description of "support the troops" was pretty solid and it would be helpful to see what exactly you have problems with. If you're treating soldiers as second class citizens or are discriminating against them, that's what I would consider over the line. Otherwise, its like holding the door for people: its nice and proper, but no one's forcing you to do it. Individually, the only responsibility I see people having is treating soldiers the same way as other people. Societally, however, the onus is much, much greater.

To try and make it specific and say I'm against soldiers is to miss the point completely.

No it isn't. Its completely the point. I disagree with the war as well and have protested against it. So have you apparently. The disagreement and point of focus is that I don't consider soldiers as a complicit in the immorality of the war, and so that's exactly what I think this debate is about. The disagreement with the war isn't contested.

Better geared soldiers are more likely to win, I don't want them to win. I don't think they should be there in the first place. If they are under geared, then they should come home. Problem solved.

I'm sorry, but that's a load of BS. Better protected soldiers are soldiers that die less often. You can't pretend to hold a moral position while advocating the deaths of other people. If you're talking about congress or parliament withholding funding for the war that's one thing, but saying our soldiers should start getting killed until they come home is....I don't even know.

In every western society we have accepted that the federal government can make decisions on its own that best represent society's interests (ideally). When that doesn't happen, protesting and campaigning follow. I'm starting to get the feeling this is less about soldiers and more the beginnings of a libertarian rant.

[Moe]

To go a bit further than that, supporting the troops means appropriately funding the veteran's affairs office, making sure they have good body armor and other protection even if its not economically efficient to do so, and other things. Society is asking these people to put themselves in harm's way for it, and should reimburse them for that.

Ok the hypocrisy is killing me. Everyone is happy to go on TV and claim that they support the troops, that they deserve respect and reimbursement for defending their country (though to be perfectly frank, no other country in the history of mankind has defended itself by invading third-world shitholes halfway around the globe), yet there are in excess of 130,000 homeless veterans¹. In 2007, nearly two million veterans were without insurance², and in 2008 over two thousand veterans under the age of 65 died not from enemy fire but from lack of insurance³, more than fourteen times the number of soldiers who died in Afghanistan that year. To summarize, you guys do an incredibly shitty job at supporting your troops, so please don't get morally outraged about anti-war protesters and attempt to claim the moral high ground. Saying "I support the troops" means absolutely nothing when you keep voting people into office who let crap like this happen.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

although i am usually the first to poo poo the notion that a war on the other side of the world can constitute self defence, the issue can get pretty muddy in a global era. One countries mess can spill over anywhere in the world for the cost of a couple plane tickets... I'm not justifying anything. But every country has at least a minor security interest in global stability and harmony, no matter how remote that trouble might be from them.

of course, the real problem with that is that I'm using a pretty loose definition of self defense. Every war of aggression in history was justified based on self defence.

[No Surrender]

The problem is whether you like it or not any government today cannot survive without an army, because of the crazy dictators and terrorists. In the case of the U.S. we have had our hands so far up other countries asses that we cannot afford to go without an army. So for the people who have signed up or in the case of the Vietnam war been drafted, they deserve more respect than the average person.

That's not true. Costa Rica, for example, has not had an army since 1948 and has enjoyed 59 years of continual democracy. Considering that the reputation of Latin American nations in the area of dictatorships and terrorism, I would say that your statement about no nation being able to survive without a standing army is demonstrably false. Hell, Costa Rica is sandwiched between Nicaragua and Panama, not exactly paragons of democracy and stability and it hasn't collapsed yet for want of an army.

Now, to me, the notion of "supporting the troops" implies a measure of positive action on my part. Everyone already supports the troops in the most literal sense by paying taxes which are used to pay, house, feed and arm them so when we talk about "supporting" the troops we're talking about actions above and beyond our civic duty to pay taxes toward the upkeep of our nation's armed forces. I don't believe any citizen has the duty or should be pressured into supporting the troops above and beyond paying taxes if they do not support the wars in which the military participates. Now, I'm not saying that people should spit on troops returning from tours of duty, nor treat them with disdain, but I simply do not see a moral imperative for the average citizen to go out and donate their money on top of taxes or take other actions to support conflicts which they do not approve of.

I also believe that, especially in places like the US, blind and vehement "support the troops" rhetoric can be fundamentally anti-democratic in intent and effect. If people can no longer criticize policy because they fear that they will be shunned and ostracized for not supporting the troops then the market place of ideas is impoverished as a result and the free and frank exchange of ideas upon which democracy is based suffers. It is entirely possible to wish that no harm will befall men and women in uniform fighting overseas but at the same time criticize the war that they are belligerents in. By analogy, it is possible to love a family member but criticize aspects of their behaviour, especially if you believe that such behaviour is bringing harm to themselves and yourself (e.g. drug use or problem gambling).

In essence, there is a false dichotomy being created in many countries - either you support the troops through unwavering applause of every conflict they're in or you hate brave soldiers and probably hold up "Thank God for dead soldiers" signs at military funerals. This dichotomy is being perpetuated by the advocates of controversial wars because it means they don't have to intellectually and rationally defend the practical and moral merits of these conflicts - a McCarthyism of sorts. I'm not saying that everyone who supports wars like Iraq and Afghanistan is one of these people, indeed it would be difficult to find someone like this on the Relic Forums, however the Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks of the world certainly employ this tactic to great effect.

So in summary: I do not believe it is the duty of citizens in a free and democratic society to support their troops beyond paying taxes toward their upkeep and welfare. Further, I believe it is entirely possible to wish that soldiers fighting in wars which one does not support come to no harm and can return home sooner without being "against the troops". Lastly, I think that the phrase "supporting the troops" has become a loaded term and victim of intentionally perpetuated false dichotomy.

[LoCo]

Sabulum: As you can see in this thread, there are many different views on what "supporting the troops" means. You put forth the idea of what you thought it meant, but you said that it was "America's" view. Clearly it is not. That is what I meant by "I don't think that's what it means at all". Clearly your view is not accepted by everyone, yet you keep talking like it is. I've already, a few times, stated what I thought "support the troops" means. Just read through my posts before you joined the discussion. Many others have also stated what they think it means.

It's nothing like holding the door open for someone. If you want to use that example, you need to put it in the proper context. It's like someone telling you to hold the door open for someone who is three people ahead/behind you, but not for anyone else. So you have to run ahead, open the door for them and then close it so everyone else has to open the door.

If we use your example, then you are saying that it is polite to hold the door open - for everyone. Yet if we go by what else you are saying, you say that soldiers deserve more respect than the average person. So your example doesn't work with what you are saying. Either you hold the door open for everyone, or for just the soldiers. If you hold it open for everyone, then you aren't giving soldiers the extra respect you say they deserve.

You then cloud the matter by saying that individually we should treat soldiers the same as everyone else, but as a whole we should treat them better. If everyone, individually, is treating soldiers the same as everyone else, then how can you jump to everyone treating soldiers better? Lots of individuals treating soldiers like everyone else doesn't equate to socially treating soldiers better.

One of the reasons for the no omnislashing rule is that things get taken out of context like you did when I said "I do, actually, treat soldiers differently." I said that, and then used the paragraph to explain further and linked it back to what I've said in previous posts. If you read all that, then I think I've explained fairly coherently what I mean by it. I treat them like I treat anyone supporting unjust wars. Most of the people I know don't support the current unjust wars. I distance myself from those who do. That's how I treat them differently, I see soldiers as complicit in the current unjust wars and thus distance myself from them. I still treat everyone as humans though. I wouldn't run around spitting at people I don't like. I'd just avoid them. Conflict breeds more conflict. Look at the state of the world to see how true that is.

You are missing the point if you think I'm just against soldiers. I've stated many times that if the military was just used as defence, then I have no problem with that. What I'm against is unjust wars. Since soldiers are taking part in said wars, I am against them. That's not to say I'm against soldiers from Greece or New Zealand or South Africa, I don't give them much thought at the moment because as far as I'm aware they aren't fighting in unjust wars. It is the wars I am against, and thus, by extension, the soldiers that fight in them. If said soldiers weren't fighting in unjust wars, I'd have no problem with them. So, again, to try and peg me as someone against soldiers is missing the point.

You could perhaps challenge my view that soldiers in an unjust war are complicit, but that's not what you are doing. Instead you are trying to define my view to suit you so that you can argue something completely different. So to what the thread is about, I believe the question "3. Can one reconcile being opposed to a conflict with supporting the armed forces efforts?" came up. My answer to it is back near the start of the thread, but the short version is "No". I don't see the possibility of separating the soldier from the conflict he is in. Unless the soldier has been drafted, s/he has a choice.

Lastly, I never once "advocated" the deaths of anyone. I've said that if the soldiers are under geared it is just one more reason to go home. I didn't say "they should keep dying until they go away!!!". If anything, it is your position that is getting soldiers killed.

"Better protected soldiers are soldiers that die less often."

Soldiers not on the battlefield die even less often. Go figure.

If you want to dismiss my argument as a "libertarian rant" then go right ahead. However, you would do well to remember that you do not know my political affiliation. I don't even know why I bothered to try discuss this with you. You've been making assumptions about my position from the start, constantly trying to reword my arguments and have tried to push your view as everyone's view. Just reading the thread you should already know that not even close to everyone shares your view.

The current wars are unjust. Anyone involved in them is complicit and thus in support of them. That means the soldiers who chose to sign up. Unless you can show me how the soldiers are not complicit, I don't think we have anything more to say to each other - particularly if you have reached the point where you are calling my posts rants.

[n0z3k1ll3r]

LoCo: If the soldiers signed up before the war I wouldn't blame them too much... armies tend to shore up the escape clauses pronto in wartime.

[absauston]

Costa Rica, for example, has not had an army since 1948 and has enjoyed 59 years of continual democracy.

But they do have a paramilitary force. While I think it is great that they have 59 years of peace, you don't know whether or not that is going to change. Like you said earlier Nicaragua and Panama aren't exactly stable.

What about all the other people who are in professions we have come to rely on to the point where our lives would change drastically for the worse if we didn't have them?

They have my respect, however I don't hear of too many of those rubbish collectors, IT people, sewage workers losing limbs or suffering from PTSD. Then they come home, and as Moe stated, get fucked by our citizens/government. You have to give them more respect for that.

[Noble]

They have my respect, however I don't hear of too many of those rubbish collectors, IT people, sewage workers losing limbs or suffering from PTSD.

If having a dangerous job is what merits respect then that is still not limited to soldiering. There are plenty of jobs which are necessary to our society and are also quite dangerous and stressful to perform.

I tend to agree with Loco's sentiment, but I also recognize that things are a bit more complicated than "us versus them". When one lives in a society one tacitly supports the actions of that society through taxes. As an individual, I usually don't get to make specific decisions about how that money is spent. It is almost certain that a portion of that money will be spent on things that I disagree with on some level (the current wars are a great example of this). I recognize this, but I also recognize the necessity of paying taxes and the benefits conferred upon me by participating in a functioning society as well as the fact that there will never be a society that I am in complete agreement with.

Soldiering is similar. They are paying into their society with a specific form of labor and they don't get to directly decide how that labor will be leveraged. All they have open to them is the ability to indirectly influence the decisions of their society through votes.

So both the soldier and myself are directly supporting things which we may or may not agree with. We are both, to some extent, responsible for whatever actions our society carries out. Taxes are necessary and a standing army is necessary. We all pay into our societies in exchange for substantial benefits and we all accept the fact that sometimes the actions of our society are in contravention with our own standards. This is a simple fact.

I just don't think that soldiers should be worshiped and idolized the way they are. They pay into society in their own way. I pay into society in mine. I strive to treat everyone with the same amount of respect and only modify that treatment if I see that a person has acted in a way which I personally find praiseworthy or, conversely, worthy of scorn.

[No Surrender]

But they do have a paramilitary force. While I think it is great that they have 59 years of peace, you don't know whether or not that is going to change. Like you said earlier Nicaragua and Panama aren't exactly stable.

The point is that Costa Rica and several other countries have had decades of peace and stability without the presence of a standing military - something you asserted was impossible. Your words were clear and unambiguous: "any government today cannot survive without an army". By the most generous definition of the term "paramilitary" every police force in the world would be a paramilitary force and claiming that your statement was accurate simply because Costa Rica maintains a small body of men for border patrol and internal security functions smacks of goalpost moving.

...Then they come home, and as Moe stated, get fucked by our citizens/government. You have to give them more respect for that.

That doesn't make sense. The policies of the government are dictated by the voters. If the voters ought to support the troops because they get fucked over by policy and voters indirectly control policy, isn't that circular logic? Shouldn't the voters break the cycle by voting for better support mechanisms for returning veterans? It's nice to say that you support the troops or respect them because of the shit deal they get upon returning home but unless you do something to improve their lot they're just empty words.

[absauston]

@NS
No, I never said support the troops anywhere in any of my posts, I said respect. That is different, I don't support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I am not actively involved in some charity for soldiers or helping veterans find a job, besides my taxes I don't support the troops. I do give them a higher respect than the average person, a quiet understanding that they did something I wouldn't. Yes, voters are responsible for improving the care of soldiers, however I don't vote. Nor am I advocating change to the system currently implemented, my point is simply that they need a little more respect than the average person. Also about the Costa Rica's military, yes, what I said was wrong.

After reading Noble's statement, I can come to terms with what LoCo is saying.

[Sabulum]

Loco, no, you haven't said what you mean by supporting the troops. I also don't see anyone disagreeing with what I said. Moe came back and complained that in reality the government isn't supporting our troops as well as it should be, but (I don't want to be words in his mouth) his complaint was that the US wasn't living up to its expectations, not that "supporting our troops" meant abandoning them or not providing decent care. Offtopic, I donate money to the DAV and have helped out at food shelters the past couple summers, so I don't appreciate the label hypocrite, but I don't think he was disagreeing with my definition.

My point here is that there's two levels: individual and societal. Individually, as long as we treat soldiers with a baseline of respect, that's all I feel is needed. It would be nice to treat them with more respect, but not necessary. Societally, for which the federal government is a stand-in, we owe veteran's and soldiers a good deal more.

I'm not twisting your words. You're being extremely vague and throwing out phrases that could be interpreted tons of ways. If you just avoid soldiers and don't deal with them, then that's one thing. Saying you treat them differently, however, is a much, much broader statement. Throwing out broad statements and then going, "well, I really meant this and you should be ashamed for misinterpreting me" a couple posts later is rather disingenuous. If you would actually spend a second to properly lay out what the implications of your belief are, then I agree we probably wouldn't have a debate because so far your position seems to be that soldiers are complicit in an unjust war but you aren't going really to treat them differently because of it at all. People are allowed to think whatever they want, my point was that their actions should be limited. No one should be forcing you to prostrate yourself or be overly polite to soldiers or not think that they're a bunch of huge douches.