stilltrucking wrote:What I was concerned with was not that the troops were being deprived music videos, but that they were being denied information,
like, you know, food for thought. I was not expecting anyone to sympathize with them.
What sort of information? That going to some country and killing strangers might be wrong? I don't think that's something the Internet can teach. If a grown adult hasn't figured that out, the Internet is the least of their concerns.
I imagine it was similiar to how so many of those who enlisted after 9/11 felt.
Well, do you want to open that whole can of worms again?
* * *
doreen peri wrote:I remember once (a few years back) having a similar conversation. It got me pretty upset. I was saying that even though I hated the war and wanted it to end and knew it should never have been started in the first place, I supported the troops because they are doing what they think is right and they mean well.
eyelidelessness said to me, "so did the men in the SS." (or something like that. Please correct me if I paraphrased it wrong).
The point is that people who think they are doing right thing might actually be committing horrible crimes. The point is that when the culture is destructive, the culture's heroes are too. A lot of people in the SS really did think they were doing good things, and a lot of Germans said more or less what is being said here. But we all know that the SS was a murderous organization that terrorized and murdered millions of innocent people. We also know that the same is true of the US military.
I still believe in peace. I still want to stop all war. I still believe war is unnecessary and should be abolished.
To me, I guess it depends on what you mean by "war" and by "peace". Conflict is natural, and sometimes mutually exclusive positions are valid and irreconcilable. War as
we know it (what was historically called "total war", such as the wars of annihilation in the Congo or parts of Eastern Africa; imperial and colonial war, such as the US invasion of Iraq; for instance) is completely illegitimate and atrocious.
But not all war is like that.
But I cringe when he calls them murderers.... even though I know it might be true. I mean after all, they enlisted to "defend their country."
Did they? From what? Most people join the military for economic reasons. Some for ideological reasons. And it's really irrelevant. It doesn't matter why a man rapes a woman… he might even not have believed she wasn't interested. He's still a rapist.
It is supposed to be honorable.
It's supposed to be a lot of things it's not.
I got a mother of a soldier very upset recently when I told her (a stranger on the internet), that the war should end and we should bring the troops home because they are dying for nothing and innocent Iraqi citizens are being killed for nothing. I said, "I hope they bring your son home soon!"
I thought I was saying something supportive of her son who is in Iraq, but she got offended, coming back with how her son was a hero and how she is proud of him and all the troops and how they shouldn't leave until "the job is done" (whatever the job is!) I'm sure we've all heard this before but I felt awful that she took offense from my statements.
People get offended. Get over it.
I guess, indirectly, because I said "Iraqi citizens are being killed for nothing," I was calling her son a murderer.
And you were right.
I didn't mean to do that. But that's what it sounded like. And then again, maybe that is what it is.
If you're open to that possibility, why would you lie to yourself about it? What good does it do you, the soldiers, Iraqis or anyone?
Those who support this particular war effort will say that we needed to go to Iraq to "stop terrorism" and "spread democracy." Replace the word "terrorism" with "communism" and it's the same as Vietnam.
And…?
I'm a pacifist myself but I wouldn't (couldn't and I don't know why but it seems wrong)... call our troops "murderers."
Our troops? I've got troops? Can I send them to Iraq to stop the US military?
It just seems wrong to call them that, I guess since our armed forces are supposed to be part of the "Defense" Department.
Would you prefer the Ministry of Peace?
Eyelidlessness, you are not a pacifist but you sound like one.
When is war NOT murder? Please elaborate on this question.
It's complicated. But I think this might be the wrong question to ask. I think a more appropriate question might be: when is force appropriate? War, as we understand it, is probably invariably murder. We've almost completely obliterated any memory of collective conflict that was any other way. In a society like ours, conceiving of appropriate force is, to me, mainly reserved for interpersonal matters: it would be appropriate to use force to prevent a man from raping a woman (or for the woman to defend herself), for instance.
e_dog wrote: It's all so morally simple. Blame the GIs.
For their actions? Hell yes, they are responsible for their actions.
* * *
mnaz wrote:I don't think most would argue that the armed forces should be abolished.
Well, hopefully someday that will change. I mean, unless by "the armed forces" you mean collectively operated community-defense groups that are directly comprised of, and accountable to, the community they defend.
The US military should not exist. It's an imperial army, capable only of destruction.
Ideally, in this less than ideal world, they should exist only to function in defense of the country against hostile attack
This "country" shouldn't even exist. It certainly isn't capable of competently defending itself anyhow, so I guess it's a moot point.
(and to execute various humanitarian disaster relief efforts perhaps, a la Katrina).
Because shooting hungry people and holding refugees prisoner is something we should repeat.
Problem is, corrupt U.S. leaders in bed with their major corporate sponsors and the military-industro-death merchant complex in general have twisted and stretched the meaning of national defense beyond all credibility and even the pretense of accountability.
And if they didn't do so? The US would cease to exist.
Thus the military is too often effectively hijacked to become a corporate arm-- now more than ever, I think-- while too many of "us" are waving flags and parroting the latest talking points and White House catchphrases. "We" must do better somehow.
Maybe we can start by calling things as they actually are: going to a country half a world away and killing innocent people—
no matter your reason—is murder. By sugar-coating that, we make excuses for it to continue.
In my lifetime it has been enough for a President to simply declare that our interests require defense (preemptively) by sending troops to invade foreign soil for various trumped up noble causes of "freedom" and other Pavlov-dog, bell-ringing buzzwords, and we, the people let them get away with it... at least perhaps until too many of our own kids start coming back in body bags.
This has been true since the inception of the United States, and was true of its colonial predecessors.
This is the problem... systemic corruption and lack of accountability in government's relationship with the Dept. of "Defense" ("War Dept." was a more apt title), and a public (and military itself to some extent) that continues to tolerate it and not (loudly) demand changes.
Exactly!
And that includes me, as well. I suppose there is more I could have done and still can do to actively protest the Iraq war. I suppose for many of us, feelings of powerlessness against the "machine" and life in general get in the way of sustained activism... not an excuse, just an observation.
It's like Derrick Jensen said, "I’ve been attacked by mother horses, cows, mice, chickens, geese, eagles, hawks, and hummingbirds who thought I was threatening their children. I have known many human mothers who would kill anyone who was going to harm their little ones. If a mother mouse is willing to put her life on the line by attacking someone eight thousand times her size, what does that say about our own hearts? (The mother mouse won, by the way.)"
