I don't support the troops :A philosophical question

I don't have a stated position here for or against the warfare. I am not for or against it because I can't afford to be. I see the consequences of it and have made decisions but please don't take this as a statement of my beliefs.
 
Chessie said:
I'm going to pose a question which I haven't got an answer to yet. How do we strike a balance between the need for military and the need to keep a military from dictating our decisions?
Click to expand...

Very good question and very good points. The problem is that you are asking a question that has not been viably done at any point in history. Military has dictated the success of pretty much every major human civilization from China to Egypt to Great Britain to Rome to Greece to Persia and lastly to the United States. What do all these super powers of their time have in common? A strong military with the ability to secure land and technology. Though I really don't like war and fighting, I see that in many ways it has served to advance human kind faster than peace would. Peace brings complacency and no urgency to develop the next best technology because in war if you don't, it means you die.

So a better question would be to ask, how do we do something that mankind has never achieved? Not a simple answer at all and perhaps this will be our downfall. Perhaps the economic downturn we have seen and the massive amounts of debt from the war are signs that this happening. That peace is now becoming more profitable than war. In the past this was not true as war increased production and spurred jobs as well as growth within the winning nations. Those who lost on the other hand got the short end of the stick. So perhaps what you ask is already happening because of many factors. Media, a world economy, massive populations, limited resources, etc
 
I find war arguments droll and boring, so I won't participate except for this one statement:


People around the world use terms like Nationalism and other -isms wayyyy too often, and usually incorrectly.
 
saru said:
I find war arguments droll and boring, so I won't participate except for this one statement:


People around the world use terms like Nationalism and other -isms wayyyy too often, and usually incorrectly.
Click to expand...

I love you so much.
 
saru said:
I find war arguments droll and boring, so I won't participate except for this one statement:


People around the world use terms like Nationalism and other -isms wayyyy too often, and usually incorrectly.
Click to expand...
how can it be droll and boring?
 
Most of the people I know who get into the military did it out of financial distress. Debt, crap (or no) job, trying to find some way of getting money for college (sadly, a large percentage of those who went through with it STILL got gipped out of the college money in the end, too.) Sadly, the training/indoctrination involved really changes them, too. We can't afford to be a nation of soldiers.
Click to expand...

then it is an entirely different situation in this country... and perhaps what needs to change is the access to good colledge/university education to takie away the need for large amounts of money up front to actually get yourself that education meaning that you wouldn't need to join the military in order to get it.

This is the thing that really erks me about countries that do not offer a decent university educations loan system. Kids don't have a choice about being born, they don't have a choice where they are born and they certainly don't have a choice of what economic situuation they are born in, so to basically force some kids into the military just so they can get money for higher education is just incredibly wrong to my mind.

Children deserve opportunities to be open for them and they should be easy to access, even if they do not have the necessary money. Our government lends to students who cannot afford the fees so that they can attend university without having to worry about paying until they earn over a certain amount of money once they are finished, there is no interest on these loans and if you can't ever pay it, you don't ever have to.

That is how things should be, and as far as I'm concerned public spending arguments etc shouldn't even come into it when it's the question of education.


I tend to agree with this, too... I'd just rather they doubled as first responders. You know, a well trained national guard who CAN defend the borders from (an ever less likely) invader, but typically will be rushing in to help with disasters, etc. Maintaining hundreds of bases around the world, trying to influence countries, etc... it think it causes as many, if not more, problems than it solves.
Click to expand...
Agreed, I think there should also be as little influence from big businesses in both the military and the government. A military and a government's role should not be to represent the interests of businesses at all. I'd really like to see less business support of politicians, parties etc, because what is best for them is definitely not what is best for the world, and having them tied so closely to politics as they are in the US, is quite frankly, in my opinion, dangerous.
 
Chessie said:
I'm going to pose a question which I haven't got an answer to yet. How do we strike a balance between the need for military and the need to keep a military from dictating our decisions?
Click to expand...

Thanks for asking this question, I was googling about the reactions on war in the US and thought there was no hope. Basically I disagree that military dictates a nation's decision. It may seem so because of the role of military in building a society, and since the society is built the military defends it, but a nation dictates what the military will do. Imagine thousand of protests when the war was announced and switching off televisions when there are news that make fun with your intelligence. I know it is impossible but don't blame the military for the social mandate it has.
So to answer your question I will elaborate some issues raised from other fellows below:

Chamomille said:
The military falls under law and order (which is required by EVERY agricultural society). Its necessary and I respect that.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is necessary for immigration issues and keeping the frontiers from an attack. The USA has no frontiers with nations that are aggressive to the point of declaring war and there is the solution of create european like coordination on defense issues so they don't need army in their land. How about defense in another country's territory? Apart from the fact that defense elsewhere is a mere conceptual construction, there is NATO and United Nations on that issue. There is CIA and Interpol on finding criminals. I don't see the reason why some nations put so big importance on their army.

Jimtaylor mentioned that military dictated the success of every civilization. That is not completely true. The civilizations who had military victories and sustained through years were those that their soldiers were farmers and members of the parliament (Greeks, Romans). Many great troops of great nations that were slaves were defeated (Persians, Egyptians). Troops without culture just (at least partly) extincted (Annibas, Attilas).
So there is a necessity for an army of free men. Is there? The continue of the story says that battles caused the collapse of great empires. Without necessary an immediate replacement from an enemy. So military dictates the decay of a civilization as well.
Not to answer the question if there are really free men nowadays... Wealthy men yes, but not free.

jimtaylor said:
The way to balance the need for military versus letting it dictate our life would to make it unprofitable for all parties involved.
Click to expand...
Well, it is unprofitable, the world does not know it yet!!!

jimtaylor said:
So to answer your question in this way, we have to change the core principle to our nation’s existence. There needs to be a change from this idea of military equaling strength and instead of controlling the world through brute strength, we would have to do it through some other means. That could be smothering people with love and candy, or with an iron fist of economic strength. Too many “what-if’s” and “possibilities” to state which would actually be able to replace our current position. Plus the whole problem of trying to convince an entire nation that their current way of thinking is flawed and that there is a better way to doing it. People don’t like being told that they are wrong.
Click to expand...

Great!!! I was right thinking you were smart!!! All nations have to act this way.
However I want to comment that since war is the option of the government it makes me think that the US is under distress, I am not so confidence for US economic power when it makes wars. But it does not matter because power is not the only means to impose your will, even if that will is peace. It is the mentality, the culture, the behavor which exercises the biggest influence.


[MENTION=3846]Artsu Tharaz[/MENTION] you drive me crazy! No way you feel pity for Bin Laden and you are pro the war, what did I get wrong? Anyway rip all of the deads.
 
In short, the army reflects the society.
And the army without a sustainable culture means death.
 
Do you pay taxes? Then you support the troops, thanks.
 
So what? All the people who didn't vote for the government should't pay taxes because they do not agree with the state's policy? That's democracy, supporting the majority's choice. There are people who pay taxes and don't support the troops.
You sounded much more anarchist than you may have wished!
 
Candice_XX said:
So what? All the people who didn't vote for the government should't pay taxes because they do not agree with the state's policy? That's democracy, supporting the majority's choice. There are people who pay taxes and don't support the troops.
You sounded much more anarchist than you may have wished!
Click to expand...

I guess it comes down to what you mean by support...

if by support you mean worthless gestures and posturing then, yeah I guess...

If by support you mean, ya know... support... well, then he obviously does support the troops, he pays taxes to the federal government which funds out military. Literally supporting them with money. You really dont have a choice in this country, you either support the troops, or you are an illegal immigrant earning cash under the table.
 
@Artsu Tharaz you drive me crazy! No way you feel pity for Bin Laden and you are pro the war, what did I get wrong? Anyway rip all of the deads.
Click to expand...

Look, I'm just telling people to not forget that every human is a person, and is therefore equal in the eyes of God and so you should try and see them as equal in your own; I'm not saying don't go ever there and kill the bastards, fuck no. It's about how you see things, not what you do. The war is a necessary outlet of power, which, if America didn't unleash, it could quite frankly get very unstable. Wars are very complex things.
 
corndogman said:
This truth never goes over well on FB when I say it haha.
Click to expand...

Oh believe me I know, people want to pretend that having good or not good feelings towards something somehow makes a difference when in reality it makes none. As its the actions taken that make differences, not the intentions that lead to them.
 
You really dont have a choice in this country --> and in every democratic country, where you don't oppose to the majority by city rebel (or what is the term in English). In any other case as you said you are not a citizen you are an immigrant.
+
As its the actions taken that make differences, not the intentions that lead to them.

Come on guys!!! You don't see the contradiction in what you are saying??? You don't have a choice in an action but if you do it you agree with the principle behind it???
That's why it does not go well on facebook. Because it lacks fundamental knowledge of the function of a state.
 
Last edited:
People expressing opinion are taking action on the measure that they can. Not everybody is a governor or can give money to a governor.
But everybody can have his own mind and structuring a political philosophy is the only and ultimate act one can do under the circumstances.

It is not mandatory that you either are with the winners either you are looser. Please, winners do mistakes.
 
Would you "support" a chess player or his pawns?

I think it's rather insidious of a government to garner support for its motives by using the citizens who suffer from their motives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top