What does supporting the military mean?
USCAdad @ Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:15 am
A piece in the WaPo is generating a bit of heat. Does supporting the troops require supporting their mission?
Does a professional standing army threaten democratic rule? Does it lead toward military political leadership?
How do we deal with domestic mercenaries (Blackwater)? Do they deserve support as well? Should Governments be held accountable for mercenaries contracted by them? Should individuals be held responsible for the actions of mercenaries they contract (private security, again Blackwater during Katrina)?
[web]http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/01/the_troops_also_need_to_suppor.html[/web]
sandorski @ Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:57 am
The Mission and the Troops are 2 entirely different things.
ridenrain @ Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:12 am
No. You can't respect and support the troops without recognising the job that they do.
I'm still trying to understand how a professional standing army threatens democratic rule? This is some utopian drug vision.
Clogeroo @ Fri Feb 02, 2007 11:26 am
$1:
No. You can't respect and support the troops without recognising the job that they do.
Yes I agree how is that possible? What do you say I support you being a soldier but I do not support what you do? It more or less contradicts itself. If you support soldiers then you support what they are doing if you do not support what they are doing then you do not support the soldiers.
You could support perhaps the institution of the armed forces itself but not the people working there.
Edit: Except for maybe conscription where people are forced to be soldiers. They did not volunteer for their task and probably would not want to be there. So I suppose you could support those soldiers by not supporting what they do and many of them probably don't like their job either.
USCAdad @ Fri Feb 02, 2007 12:17 pm
Avro's ending quote brings up an interesting point. If professional troops are inseparable from their objectives or what they're currently doing, and if the war they are involved in is found to be illegal or illegal measures are used, should they be held criminally accountable along with the leaders that might have made the initial decision?
$1:
I'm still trying to understand how a professional standing army threatens democratic rule? This is some utopian drug vision.
The military is a tool of the people. The people should be the ones directing their actions and conflicts. The military is at the call of the people. When it goes the other way you have a military dictatorship. You don't get a blank check to roam the globe looking for problems at the tax payers expense.
USCAdad @ Fri Feb 02, 2007 12:26 pm
[web]http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=10444[/web]
ridenrain @ Fri Feb 02, 2007 12:27 pm
You and MP Dawn Black should have brought this up with Chretien back on 2000.
Calgary123 @ Fri Feb 02, 2007 12:29 pm
Avro Avro:
ridenrain ridenrain:
No. You can't respect and support the troops without recognising the job that they do.
I'm still trying to understand how a professional standing army threatens democratic rule? This is some utopian drug vision.
I'm still trying to understand how a professional standing army threatens democratic rule? This is some utopian drug vision.
Bollocks, one can support the troops and have differences with the conflict they are in.
Take Iraq for instance, (the war cons have forgotton about) I, as you know hate the war there but I have do ill feelings for the men and women who serve in Iraq. In fact, my stance on the war is more supportive than some pea brained cheerleader who still wants troops dying for zero reason.
Your opinion is merely political patriotic nonesense and nothing to do with supporting the troops. Guys like you use it as a weak debate tactic to make those who don't support your wars feel guilty.
I wonder if more Germans hadn't had this same nonsense rolling around in their heads we would have even fought WII?
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."
--Goering at the Nuremberg Trials
Good post Avro,
You are right on point with this argument. Calling someone who doesn't support the war "unpatriotic" or even worse, a "terrorist supporter" doesn't fly. It's an argument that defies common sense and logic... unfortunately, there are those that have bought into this way of thinking, as wrong as it is. It's an argument, as weak as it is... that has been reinforced and pounded into the weak minds of the American people (and now Canadians for that matter) by the government and media.
I liked the quote you finished up with... The Nazi propoganda mirrors the US form in so many ways.
USCAdad @ Fri Feb 02, 2007 12:31 pm
Nation building is supposed to be a Liberal position. They should take a lot of the blame for this. Perhaps they are changing their positions. With the Dems starting to champion populist protectionism, fewer military excursions, smaller deficits, they're actually starting to hold more old conservative positions than the Republicans are running with. I guess it's not unheard of for the political parties to flip flop on what separates them.
Canadian_Mind @ Fri Feb 02, 2007 12:35 pm
I support the military by calling on the government to provide the cash to supply the troops with more equipment than they need to get the job done, aswell as welcome them home with a smile and open arms.
I will always do this for the troops no matter the mission. I support the war in Afghanistan, I believe we are there for a reason. I do not support the war in Iraq, but even if we were in Iraq, I would still call on the government to give them what the need, and I would still welcome them home.
ridenrain @ Fri Feb 02, 2007 12:54 pm
Avro Avro:
ridenrain ridenrain:
You and MP Dawn Black should have brought this up with Chretien back on 2000.
Another empty comment, you must love or hate all wars.
Get a job.
To better define the question: You cannot support the troops without recognising and accepting the job they do. They are soldiers and their job is to fight or defend by use of deadly force.
To draw an analogy, you can't really support the Vancouver Cannucks if you hate hockey.
You can dispute the mission because that is the political application of the troops but the troops are simply doing their jobs.
I wrote to ask Dawn Black where her complaints were when Chretien put us there in the first place. I'd ask the same question of you Avro, but you'll just weasle out, saying that the mission, that never was defined, has somehow changed.
sandorski @ Fri Feb 02, 2007 1:24 pm
ridenrain ridenrain:
Avro Avro:
ridenrain ridenrain:
You and MP Dawn Black should have brought this up with Chretien back on 2000.
Another empty comment, you must love or hate all wars.
Get a job.
To better define the question: You cannot support the troops without recognising and accepting the job they do. They are soldiers and their job is to fight or defend by use of deadly force.
To draw an analogy, you can't really support the Vancouver Cannucks if you hate hockey.
You can dispute the mission because that is the political application of the troops but the troops are simply doing their jobs.
I wrote to ask Dawn Black where her complaints were when Chretien put us there in the first place. I'd ask the same question of you Avro, but you'll just weasle out, saying that the mission, that never was defined, has somehow changed.
Agreed with this post, but not with the: Support War = Support Troops
Troops exist to Fight, they don't exist to be involved in X War. The Government and the People decide what War is worth fighting, the Troops don't.