This has always confused me about certain sectors of leftist criticism. They should know that these sorts of things are fully legal and if they aren’t, will be made legal. That’s how power works. I think they’re trying to appeal to laws-not-men types, but it never seems to do much.
Since both political parties fully supported both Vietnam and Iraq your point kinda falls flat. The U.S. has very little collective responsibility for its military actions imo. Do you think the Soviet people were responsible for what their country did in Afghanistan too?
Debatable. We’ll be in both countries for quite some time, killing and maiming. Note that in the last election both candidates were pro-war, they just differed on where to direct the target. Obama started new wars and bombing campaigns as well.
Even if we accept the spit on hippie stab in the back legend, it’s not as bad as getting blown up by a land mine or fragged by a disgruntled conscript. Plus did you really just say anti-war activists didn’t attempt anything substantial in an attempt to sway public opinion?
Be mad at the politicians not the soldiers. People like Bush and now Obama (Libya) and Mccain (who has a hardon about Afghanistan for some reason) are the people you should be wringing your hands over.
There are many reasons that people join the military, not least of which is seeking a job and/or saving for college.
There are very few who join the military for the love of violence so your opinion on this is misplaced at best and something else at worst.
Well, what the hell is the OP going to do about it? It’s fairly clear that a very, very small minority of members here have any inclination to think of service members as evil. In fact, I probably have an excess of fingers on my left hand to count them.
The OP proposes that “we” do something to end the wars by starting to assault, harass, and criticize the troops.
The OP doesn’t need “us” to do that. I suggest the OP should start on his merry way doing things like spitting on the troops, or calling them baby-killers as he sees them in the airports, and report back on how that goes.
Because he knows damn well that “we” aren’t going to do anything of the sort.
You can certainly request to be released from your contract. But absent compelling reasons, falling within established regulations, you’re going to serve wherever the Army sends you, for the period you signed up for.
And even your original contract might not let you out at the end of the prescribed time: Ever hear of “stop-loss?”
They can quit, anytime they want, so long as they’re prepared for the consequences, most usually involving jail time, a criminal record, and a discharge which will quite possibly affect their futures for the remainder of their lives. Title 10, United States Code (the UCMJ) is a criminal code, and going AWOL, or deserting, or failing to deploy with their unit is one of the included crimes. And “being kept against the will” of the criminal defendant will not be a successful defense at trial.
I would say your logic is a bit flawed then. That’s a little like killing the messenger. Write your congressmen or the President. You’re trying to effect change with the wrong element when you attack the soldiers.
From your posts, I wonder if you even live in the US, or if you do, where you originate from, and if an underlying motive may be at work here.
This is an important point. The late 60s was also a time of huge social change in the US. Many of the Peace and Love Hippy Woodstock Generation considered protesting Vietnam to be an extension of the Civil Rights movement. In their mind, Vietnam was just another example of The Establishment trying to wield influence and power over another marginalized people.
Of course the political reality is much more complex. And to a certain extent, through the benefit of historic hindsight, we realize that many participants of that movement were a bunch of entitled, bong-addled weirdos who didn’t really do anything but sit around not showering and doing drugs all day.
You are, of course, free to “believe” whatever would make you happiest. It might help if you understood the analogy, though. The point is not to draw a direct comparison between current US soldiers and past German soldiers, but rather to point out the difference in perception regarding the two groups. My position is that, since most people still apparently find it acceptable to demonize NAZI soldiers for policies that they did not set and could not have influenced, it is unconvincing to argue that modern society simply refuses to impute responsibility to rank-and-file soldiers. Treating one’s own kind differently than one treats others should, I believe, be abhorrent to modern mankind. Hence, if it acceptable to hate average German soldiers for German policies, it should be no less acceptable to hate average US soldiers for US policies.
Let’s begin with the obvious. The invasion and occupation of Iraq was and continues to be a thoroughly illegal repudiation of the US’s international obligations. Any US soldier participating in the perpetuation of this occupation is thus following illegal orders, and is consequently a criminal worthy of derision.
Commissar says he’s a “Soviet” immigrant who came over to the US as a teen and has since become a thorough and enthusiastic communist supporting the invasions of Afghanistan by the Soviets and the slaughter of dissidents at Beijing.
Nevertheless, he is thoroughly Americanized to the point where he’s made mistakes regarding Russian culture that no Russian immigrant I’ve ever met has made.
As to committing atrocities; well he certainly has no problem with them being committed, only if they are being committed by westernors.
In fact, he’s even said genocide might be justifiable.
You are absolutely right. To effect the change you want, I suggest you start a “demonizing and deriding” tour of the United States. You can make your views publically known and invite like minded people to join you. I would start in small towns in Texas. Those are hotbeds of anti-military sentiment in the United States.
There is nothing ridiculous about pride in one’s country. If it weren’t for our military the world would be a radically different place. Yes, we’ve launched a number of wars since WW-II and those who opposed us backed regimes that did not favor freedom. It’s difficult in many countries to establish a freely elected/self- governing society because of years of ingrained corruption. Maybe we shouldn’t bother. If 100,000 or a million people are slaughtered then what’s it to us. However, we fought the wars because the UN is useless in this regard and we are the biggest dog in the yard. It would be nice if other nations would take the lead but it’s a money thing.
as lilbug said, you enjoy the luxury of your opinion. This is what we celebrate on the 4th. you’re free to do whatever you want on that day or any other day. While we value your ability to express an opinion consider it ignored.
The OP is correct that I enjoy the deaths of Nazi soldiers in documentaries and video games. I don’t know if it means what he says it means though. When you’re a Nazi soldier and your side loses, that is how the cookie crumbles. It is hard to think of many other violent deaths that seem like a good thing. OBL I guess.
Also it is fascinating how some of the equipment seems so antique compared to what we have today. Heck, a war that isn’t utterly lopsided is kind of antique too.
Bottom line, I’m not about to go here and there pushing around US soldiers.
What is an “illegal repudiation of US’s international obligations”?
But lets, for the sake of argument, say that the Iraq war was illegal*. Can you site any instance in international law when soldiers were prosecuted for participation in regular military procedures? What precedent are citing? So far, you’ve mentioned Nuremberg. Again, what was the lowest ranking military person prosecuted there?
*Just to be clear, I do not accept that the war is/was illegal. And we are not occupiers, nor have we been for a long time.
A country that had no hand in shaping the absurd structure of the UN, nor has had any imperial ambition in the post-WW2 era.
There are tens of millions of dead civilian men, women and children scattered across 4 continents who can bear testament to the USA as the ‘worlds policeman’.
The overwhelming majority of those deaths were caused by people the US fought against. If the US were not the world policeman, the ChiComs would fill the void.
Both political sides supported Iraq and Afghanistan as well. What you do is you agitate for change within the political structure and you elect officials who agree with your view points. I don’t see how the point falls flat at all…the anti-war movement in the US was before Iraq and Afghanistan was weak, but they kept at it and within a fairly short time frame they DID cause a change in the Democratic mainstream and in the American mainstream as well. And now we are pretty much out of Iraq and will be (if we stay on schedule) by the years end…and we should be out of Afghanistan within a year or so as well I should think, based on how things are moving in the US.
Or, I guess, they could simply hate the soldiers (as the OP suggests) and see how that works out. How long were we in Vietnam again? I seem to recall that we were there from around when I was born until I was in my early teens, so…
Good question. They didn’t really get a choice, by and large, unless they were one of the elite in the Communist Party. Of course, that’s the reality…the propaganda wrt the author of this thread is that the Soviet Union was controlled by the workers and peasants, and thus by definition whatever they did had the full consent and authority of said workers and peasants…so, if the propaganda were to be believed, then certainly they were responsible for the brutality they did in Afghanistan. And their various earlier brutalities as well.
Which part is debatable? We WERE in Vietnam longer than either Iraq or Afghanistan. We ARE drawing down substantially in Iraq (we should be out except for possibly some small group of advisers and such) this year if we stay on schedule (IIRC we are down to 45,000 troops in Iraq atm and it continues to fall). We have started the process of similarly getting out of Afghanistan. Which part is debatable?
As for ‘new wars’ that Obama supposedly started, are you referring to Libya?? We didn’t start a war there, and we aren’t even the main combatant in what’s going on there and are highly unlikely to ever send in ground troops. NATO is the main combatant and we are simply supporting them in what’s going on in Libya.
It’s a totally misdirect of where the blame lies to attempt to blame the soldiers for US military adventures in other countries. The soldiers have no say in where they get deployed…they are merely following the lawful orders of duly appointed civilian authority. Do you think that they should refuse to obey lawful orders by duly appointed civilian authority??
I think that the best that can be said by Vietnam era anti-war activism was that it was completely misdirected and counter productive. By contrast, anti-war activism that started prior to Afghanistan and continued until this day has been VERY effective at fundamental and rapid political change and acceptance by the mainstream. For instance, I’m pretty much against both wars now, while I was for Afghanistan and even tacitly for Iraq…and I’m hardly what you would call a rabid anti-war type. Yet I’ve been swayed by the calm and thoughtful anti-war movement and the arguments against both wars AND by the way that change has been effected within our system.
Again, we were in Vietnam for much longer (with an order of magnitude more causalities both on the US side and on the part of the Vietnamese, North and South). Hating the soldiers, as the OP suggests is idiotic, IMHO, and counter productive as well…and it would actually delay substantial change in the US as politicians wouldn’t want to be associated with what is perceived as coming from a rabid fringe. And such hatred would be wholly misplaced and unfair, since the actual targets of such fury should be our political governors and representatives…and ultimately ourselves for electing folks that would do stuff like that (and, of course, let’s not forget that a large percentage of the population agreed with Vietnam, Afghanistan or Iraq at one time, even if only tacitly).
The anti war protests against Vietnam helped end the war. That is the best that can be said about any anti war demonstrations. That is the best results that can be hoped for. It was a great success. I got great satisfaction out of the results.
The war ended because the US gotten beaten by an army of Asian peasants not because of a bunch of white, middle-class college students protested against the war.
If anything the anti-war protests prolonged the war by angering so many Americans that they stayed in Vietnam longer than they should have.