You DON'T support our boys?!

[Trystan]

Dead squaddies are in vogue right now. MPs expenses are old news. So are pedophiles, immigrants and Muslims. They keep dying, and Murdoch and co. keep sucking the cold blood from their corpses (i.e. making money) . . . So naturally, we are now all expected to accept without question the follwoing:

1. All soldiers are heroes.

2. All soldiers are fighting on your behalf.

3. You can oppose the war but not the soldiers (eh?)

And the most popular:

4. You can say what you want, but remember that you can only say it because of what the troops are doing. You fucking pussy! I'll kick your ass!

(Those are my own observations by the way - they're not from "The Sun Says", but they could be).

Obviously they are not all heroes, but I'm sure some of them are. They are not fighting on my behalf - I don't recall agreeing to the Afghan conflict. You obviously can't support the soldiers while simultaneously supporting the war.

And you can't disagree with all this shite without being looked at like you're some piece of dog shit smothered over a baby's face - yes, it's you're that bad. Not that I have anything against soldiers, btw - I met one last year and he was a nice enough fella.

So basically, how are you supposed to deal with these "patriotic" types on the subject of soldiers and your lack of support for them? (In fighting for something - democracy - that can't, in my opinion, be imposed by the gun).

[bellyscratch]

I see soldiers as victims of these wars too to a certain extent. They are mainly made up of poor working class people who get sucked in the the military because they see it as good pay, little qualifications needed to get in and you get to travel the world (some people just want to get away from their fucked up estates). There are quite a few people who are just misguided and they think they are helping liberate the countries they fight in and are helping protect the people in their own country.They then usually end up being used for cannon fodder. They are basically being used by the ruling elite to fight wars that don't need fighting, so this ruling elite can benefit from it in some way.

Yes, that army is always going attract nationalist nut jobs who want to die fighting for their country, people who are willing to do some of the most horrible things imaginable and not feel that it is wrong. They will attract a lot of racist, sexist and homophobic people. People who just like fighting, possibly out of frustration because they have not been able to 'think' their way out of situations. But that is just some of the people who join.

I have much sympathy for the soldiers who are risking their lives for such pointless wars, but I wouldn't say I 'support' them on their missions, because essentially what they are doing is 'wrong'.

I think the way you deal with these types, is to try have a rational argument with them. Challenge their core ideas on nationality and patriotism. Show them that these are foolish and are ideas that fundamentally serve the needs of the ruling class.

You also have to tell them that we have no right to 'liberate' these people either. We can only support them in their self-liberation efforts and encourage them to do so. Even though we do not believe in nations, we understand that in the current situation, we are still separated by them. So if the working class people are being severely oppressed in one 'nation', it can only be them who improve their own conditions, otherwise things will get worse. Just look at the state of most of the ex-colonised countries around the world.

[Intifadah]

I hope the planes carrying the corpses home start crashing, its a pity they don't use nimrods anymore.

[ls]

You can say they shouldn't even be out there in the first place, a fine argument and it seems to mostly work, the our boys argument on my part dosen't go past that.

Obviously in the larger context you can only disagree if people say something racist or that "troops are awesome and I'd like to be fighting too", or if they directly say "you must support our boys or you're a traitor to your country".

[Clear Air Turbulence]

'If you don't stand behind them, stand in front of them!'

Ummm lets not shall we? They have guns, and a moral compass that's taken a bit of a beating...

[n0thing]

The whole notion of supporting the troops, but not supporting the war; is probably the most ridiculous piece of propaganda in place today. To an outside eye it must look completely insane.

[cyu]

Answer: If you support them so much, you should sign up to replace one of them, and let one of them come home.

There are 4 kinds of policy makers:
1. Those who send people off to die and screw them if they make it back alive.
2. Those who send people off to die and help them if they make it back alive.
3. Those who don't send people off to die and screw them while they are at home.
4. Those who don't send people off to die and help them while they are at home.

[NecroCommie]

Bah! I don't need some pimple faced nationalists to grant me security! I can handle that part with my comrades thank you very much.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Wow, this sounds like political discussion in the US circa 2003. We used to get this a lot especially from mainstream liberal politicians trying to move the anti-war movement away from protesting and towards voting for Democrats ("the only realistic way to end the war").

The argument had wide appeal but it was easy to poke holes into it. Essentially support the "troops" means support the ruling classes orders to the troops - this hypocrisy becomes more clear when soldiers speak out and organize against the war.

If anything, Cindy Sheehan and Iraq Veterans Against the War, had the biggest impact on the "support the troops" stuff in the states. Politicians love having an imaginary soldier (the Platonic-ideal soldier) to beat anti-war people over the head with. They also love to invoke imaginary grieving parents of soldiers who, when anyone says anything bad against the war, are stabbed with invisible Roman pikes and made to suffer according to politicians and the media.

When a real grieving mom blames Bush and starts talking about imperialism, suddenly the war mongers stop invoking grieving parents. When the grunts are refusing orders or coming home to protest the war, then politicians stop talking about "supporting our troops" (that's "lads" to y'all).

[Marxist Madman]

This one has particularly hit home hard for me; having somewhere around 5 cousins in the military. Its rather hard to combat those types of liberals

[Blake's Baby]

... "you must support our boys or you're a traitor to your country".

Well, that's true isn't it? I'm a traitor, in that I want to see "my country" (and every other country) destroyed.

[Outinleftfield]

I've noticed the same thing. I think that this is how the state emotionally invests people in supporting it. It sets up a system to entice a lot of low income people into the military and then it becomes hard for their friends and loved ones to oppose the military or the war. It even becomes hard for the soldiers themselves to criticize it. I heard one person was completely against the war, joined thinking he wouldn't be sent, was sent, and came back and was completely for the war and would respond to any criticism with things like "you're not supporting the troops."

[ls]

Well, that's true isn't it? I'm a traitor, in that I want to see "my country" (and every other country) destroyed.

Yeah but you know what I mean, we do after all favour conditions for all workers to improve, that basically means improving the standards for people who used to live on the territory that will have formerly been "my country" as well as everyone else of course. Often if you just show your solidarity to people in that respect, actually you'll get a positive response.

I don't think it's particularly conducive to say "yeah I'm a communist I'm a traitor to my country", obviously if you're questioned intensively on it you have to say something along the lines of "I believe all the world's workers are equal and the ones over here aren't any better or worse than others", but still you get my drift.

[Communist]

I don't think it's particularly conducive to say "yeah I'm a communist I'm a traitor to my country"

I'm a communist, but not a traitor to anything. If anything, the capitalists are the traitors, to workers and oppressed worldwide.

(Of course, here in the US that comment and about $1.29 will get me a cup of lousy coffee...)

[redarmyfaction38]

Dead squaddies are in vogue right now. MPs expenses are old news. So are pedophiles, immigrants and Muslims. They keep dying, and Murdoch and co. keep sucking the cold blood from their corpses (i.e. making money) . . . So naturally, we are now all expected to accept without question the follwoing:

1. All soldiers are heroes.

2. All soldiers are fighting on your behalf.

3. You can oppose the war but not the soldiers (eh?)

And the most popular:

4. You can say what you want, but remember that you can only say it because of what the troops are doing. You fucking pussy! I'll kick your ass!

(Those are my own observations by the way - they're not from "The Sun Says", but they could be).

Obviously they are not all heroes, but I'm sure some of them are. They are not fighting on my behalf - I don't recall agreeing to the Afghan conflict. You obviously can't support the soldiers while simultaneously supporting the war.

And you can't disagree with all this shite without being looked at like you're some piece of dog shit smothered over a baby's face - yes, it's you're that bad. Not that I have anything against soldiers, btw - I met one last year and he was a nice enough fella.

So basically, how are you supposed to deal with these "patriotic" types on the subject of soldiers and your lack of support for them? (In fighting for something - democracy - that can't, in my opinion, be imposed by the gun).

soldiers are, in the majority, working class, they are employed to carry out the wishes of the ruling class and their corporations and "national" companies, they are just like you and me.
"democracy", always boils down to "whose democracy", the democracy of the ruling class or the "democracy" of the proletariat?
and, either way, "democracy" is imposed rather than agreed, seperate classes with seperate interests are constantly at "war" with each other, each trying to impose its own democracy"
and that's my final post.
cheerio and may your god go with you.

[Dust Bunnies]

It is rhetoric and nationalist propaganda which has probably been around in one wording or another since the dawn of nations.

"Support the Crusaders because they're keeping Christianity safe from the vile Muslims!"-Support the Troop motto from 1095 :P

Simply, the only way to win is not to play with nationalists on this issue.

[Lynx]

You can say you don't support the mission and keep any discussion focused on the merits and politics of that. The soldiers are supposedly there to accomplish a mission, remember? They're not over there to pose as heroes for our worship.

[mikelepore]

"Support the troops" is grammatically meaningless. They took "support the", meaning to support an opinion or argument, to agree with a statement, but after "the", instead of pointing to a claim or statement, they attached "troops", which are not a statement. If people will refer to a particular claim, only then can I tell them whether I think it's true or false. Obviously if "the troops" were to say that 1+1=3, I wouldn't "support" the conclusion. I won't let someone get away with forming an ambiguous phrase and then request that I give them a yes or a no.

[Radical]

Soldiers have always have a choice weather to take part in this illegal, immoral and imperialistic war. So Yes, We can also oppose the soldiers.

If they were that good of a person, they go awol for the great of humanity. But I dont see that happening, instead I see them following whatever orders are sent their way.


I could never fight in a war I opposed.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Soldiers have always have a choice weather to take part in this illegal, immoral and imperialistic war. So Yes, We can also oppose the soldiers.

If they were that good of a person, they go awol for the great of humanity. But I dont see that happening, instead I see them following whatever orders are sent their way.

If an American really opposed the war then you'd refuse to pay for their bullets.

Then you could chat up Leftist ideas with soldiers who went AWOL at Leavenworth. It's a win-win situation, but nobody over here seems to be living up the dream.

Maybe their not used to it. Shit, the soldiers are used to not seeing their families for years at a time in some cases (at least 15 months at once), you'd think it'd be an easy choice for them.

[NecroCommie]

If an American really opposed the war then you'd refuse to pay for their bullets.

Then you could chat up Leftist ideas with soldiers who went AWOL at Leavenworth. It's a win-win situation, but nobody over here seems to be living up the dream.

Maybe their not used to it. Shit, the soldiers are used to not seeing their families for years at a time in some cases (at least 15 months at once), you'd think it'd be an easy choice for them.

Soldiers having tough lives does not justify murder that only furthers the imperialist agenda. It's always about soldiers this soldiers that. For a communist forum I hear very little complaining about the conditions of the victims of soldiers. They die in masses, their life is tougher, their sacrifices bigger and all this while they know to fight superior enemy. I will not hear a word that martyrs the coalition imperialist troops, not until they start having a truly hard life.

Besides, western soldiers being martyrs of the system or not, it is irrelevant. Their only real choice is to obey, or not obey and take the consequenses. It is selfish for the soldier to look only the effects the choice has on him, while the choice affects hundreds if not thousands of people. Most notably people potentially to be shot by that person. While the choice affects so many, the only choice that a moral person chooses is the punishment. All other options are crimes against humanity, and only the volume of that crime remains a question.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I have to agree with Necro. The USA's Imperialist army is voluntary and whilst I understand that there is definitely propoganda and coercion and a level of helplessness felt by some of the soldiers in this army the bulk of our sympathy deserves to go to the victims of these wars and we are neglecting that.

[Revy]

I think what a lot of people in the US here might remember, is the fad of having a yellow ribbon bumper sticker which said "I support the troops". It was everywhere.

And then people that opposed the war said "Support the troops - bring them home".

Both in fact put "the troops" as the central focus - not the war and its effects on civilians. . They had to put a spin on supporting the troops in order to feel confident in opposing the war - this however, comes off as a weak position to take.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I think what a lot of people in the US here might remember, is the fad of having a yellow ribbon bumper sticker which said "I support the troops". It was everywhere.

And then people that opposed the war said "Support the troops - bring them home".

Both in fact put "the troops" as the central focus - not the war and its effects on civilians. . They had to put a spin on supporting the troops in order to feel confident in opposing the war - this however, comes off as a weak position to take.

Yes I get the feeling that in these wars there are who oppose the war in the west but are still closet-patriots who are actually more concerned about the mercenaries from their country, rather than the effects of the war itself on the innocent civilians of the place being invaded.

[FreeFocus]

Yes I get the feeling that in these wars there are who oppose the war in the west but are still closet-patriots who are actually more concerned about the mercenaries from their country, rather than the effects of the war itself on the innocent civilians of the place being invaded.

This is the case for the vast majority of people whose country is engaged in an imperialist war. It's not a question of justice, or anti-imperialism, but rather what the cost is. If the cost is low in terms of lives and money, you won't see any anti-war movement at all, that much is guaranteed.

In effect, once a person declares a strong connection with an imperialist government or society, that's a political statement in itself - look at the conversation about Afghanistan now in the Euro NATO countries. It's boiling down to their casualties only - even the leftist parties are talking primarily about economic costs and soldier lives, and what they could do "at home" with the money they'd be saving! That is an especially troubling and aggravating line to hear - "if we weren't in Afghanistan, we could use the money for jobs and improving education." People are being murdered by your imperialist pigs, and the only thing that can sway public opinion is talking about how much you can do for citizens if you moved the money from killing people abroad to setting up a welfare state at home? That speaks tons about the real interests in imperialist countries, I think, when you can only frame ceasing the murder and looting of a country in terms of making life better for "people at home." :rolleyes:

[Hoggy_RS]

Fuck them, if they join the army then they know what they are getting themselves in for. The Sun or any of those other red top tabloid pieces of shite never have front page stories showing support for all the civilians the 'brave' troops have killed.

[Fictional]

As a person with a military history, even born on an army camp I think I have alot too say on this subject.

Of course I don't agree with war, and there are a hell of alot of troops who seem to just want to kill the enemy and the army is full of facist idiots, I believe these people just aren't educated enough to realise the people they're killing are as innocent and human like as us, even in times like World War 2, just because they're in the army, doesn't mean they support the cause, the German army that tore through Normandy didn't want a war, they didn't want to rid the world of people from different backgrounds, they were ordered too, the SS and Hitler were the facist bastards, kill the leader and the rest will fall sort of thing, I see this as an example of the current situation, alot of the troops don't want to fight and some of them are extremaly nice people.

I don't support the war, I don't support the troops, I do however feel as though they should be respected, they're not in the army to kill, it's a job, they do it because they have too, my work place has had people complaining with Swine Flu, we're told we have to keep coming in and working, I don't want too even though my health is at risk, I have too. The soldiers in the army go through more shit than you can understand, I myself have done basic training but couldn't go any further because of health related problems, my father was in the Falklands war and Northern Ireland riots, my cousins and other family members have been in Iraq, I've spoken to numerous ex-soldiers and I'm infact going to a party next weekend for a Welsh Guard reunion, does that mean I support the war? Not at all, I'm simply celebrating heroes who gave up there lives for others. Seeing people blow up infront of you is beyond imagination, you may say "They signed up for it" but you never expect anything like that, it's not real, it's inhumain. They deserve respect because they go through more tougher shit than you can imagine.

[FreeFocus]

Killing people is "just a job," apparently. :lol: Wow. I'd like you to say that to a victim's face, or tell their family when they found out their relative died that the troops who killed them were just "doing a job."

Killing people is not the same as assembling fucking furniture or making a tool. It's not "just a job."

[Fictional]

There job is to "protect" the people in Iraq, obviously wrong stuff happens and innocent people are killed, I didn't mean to say it's a job to kill people, I meant it's what they've been told to do, and I've already told people about them loosing a family member, trust me, it's easier said than done.
What I meant was, they should be respected because they do more than half of the people on this forum.

[FreeFocus]

There job is to "protect" the people in Iraq, obviously wrong stuff happens and innocent people are killed, I didn't mean to say it's a job to kill people, I meant it's what they've been told to do, and I've already told people about them loosing a family member, trust me, it's easier said than done.
What I meant was, they should be respected because they do more than half of the people on this forum.

So you believe that the Coalition troops are in Iraq and NATO is in Afghanistan to protect the population? And that incidents like Haditha and Shinwar are exceptions, not the norm?

[Fictional]

What gives you the right to assume every soldier is a war-hungering idiot with no care other than himself? Is that what you believe?

[Hoggy_RS]

why is someone automatically a hero if they die in Iraq/Afghanistan? I don't believe its particularly heroic to die in the course of oppressing foreign peoples.

Those in the German army of WW2 that were referenced, many of them were brought in through draft so you could see how they'd disagree with their army's actions. However those in the British army join voluntarily, hence they must support the war effort.

[NecroCommie]

What gives you the right to assume every soldier is... ...with no care other than himself?
The fact that they choce the easy way for themselves while condemning their victims to die. All quite conciously even I assume.

[Fictional]

Incorrect, many don't have a choice, I never said they're heroes if they did or didn't fight in Iraq/Afghanistan, I simply mentioned there are some heroic souls, ever heard of people diving on a grenade to protect there platoon/friends, I find that very heroic.

Like I said above NecroCommie, some don't have a choice, regardless if they do support the war effort or not, you have to give some of these guys respect, they've had body parts blown apart, seen friends blown apart, I don't think you have a right to say @These guys are [email protected] when you have no idea about have of the beasting, road side bombs or any other shit they've been through.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

Recently my old school had a large fundraising event to help the ''heroes''; I can't help thinking there are more important things that they could be campaigning for.

There is no doubt in my mind that a few of the soldiers in Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan are heroes, but heroes anywhere are rare so I think it's safe to assume they are in a minority. To regard ''our boys'' as heroes just because they are in the army is ridiculous, and I feel no need to respect them or be grateful for what they're doing overseas. There's a large proportion of soldiers in my town as well, and loads of them are just racist thugs.

I do not support the war, I do not support the soldiers. Tell me about someone who did something brave and I might respect that, but I'm not going to support and admire just anybody.

[NecroCommie]

Incorrect, many don't have a choice,
Ridiculous! Ofcourse they do! They can go to jail or start an exile. And don't tell me it is not a real option, I can give you numerous examples of dudes who did this in different countries. If they can do it, so can everyone else.

I never said they're heroes if they did or didn't fight in Iraq/Afghanistan, I simply mentioned there are some heroic souls, ever heard of people diving on a grenade to protect there platoon/friends, I find that very heroic.
Irrelevant. They are class enemies and should be treated as such.


Like I said above NecroCommie, some don't have a choice, regardless if they do support the war effort or not, you have to give some of these guys respect, they've had body parts blown apart, seen friends blown apart,
Their victims have been through much more horrible ordeals, and alot more ordeals. And the western imperialist troops always have a choice to stay home and not experience anything like that at all. If you are approached by a conscriptor, I'd suggest Belgium. As I understand they have not signed the treaty of surrendering fugitives. Some americans also choose Canada, although I do not know the details of that one.


I don't think you have a right to say @These guys are [email protected] when you have no idea about have of the beasting, road side bombs or any other shit they've been through.
Rights are things made up by humans, and therefore their authority is questionable. And why does anyone give a shit about coalition troops? In comparison their victims are way more numerous and more under peril. Is this some wanna-be nationalism to think that the ordeals of coalition troops are somehow more important because they live nearby?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Ridiculous! Ofcourse they do! They can go to jail or start an exile. And don't tell me it is not a real option, I can give you numerous examples of dudes who did this in different countries. If they can do it, so can everyone else.

The US army isn't conscript Necro. I think Fictional was meaning economic choice. Some soliders perceive the army as their only choice, and obviously indoctrination and propoganda contribute to that.

[Fictional]

Bullshit, the soldiers and victims go through the same ordeal, they can both be injured and have limbs blown off, doesn't mean the victim is any more terrorised than the soldier, I don't care what you think, soldiers have a hard time too, they deserve respect and if you're not going to give it to them then you're an idiot and should consider joining the military yourself just to see how much they go through.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Bullshit, the soldiers and victims go through the same ordeal

No way, it is incomparable. I'm sorry it just isn't, you are delusional to think this. I didn't see any massacres of American soldiers in Vietnam but I did see My fucking Lai! I didn't see any camps for soldiers in Iraq where innocent men and women were beaten the shit out of and stripped naked, no I just saw Iraqi's facing this at the hands of the soldiers.

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

Bullshit, the soldiers and victims go through the same ordeal, they can both be injured and have limbs blown off, doesn't mean the victim is any more terrorised than the soldier, I don't care what you think, soldiers have a hard time too, they deserve respect and if you're not going to give it to them then you're an idiot and should consider joining the military yourself just to see how much they go through.

''Victim''. The whole meaning of the world victim is that they are the ones being terrorised. Soldiers are not being terrorised.

Soldiers do have a hard time, but that doesn't mean they deserve respect. I don't respect people who are in difficult situations, I might feel sympathy for them, but not admiration.

Soldiers choose to join the military - in a way they put themselves through it. Calling someone an idiot just because they don't agree with you is uncalled for.

[NecroCommie]

Bullshit, the soldiers and victims go through the same ordeal, they can both be injured and have limbs blown off, doesn't mean the victim is any more terrorised than the soldier, I don't care what you think, soldiers have a hard time too, they deserve respect and if you're not going to give it to them then you're an idiot and should consider joining the military yourself just to see how much they go through.
I know more about the army life than you'd think. Some armies actually test their soldiers, but the US army is a fucking holiday compared to others. They actually have beds, real tents, fucking video games and music! Their food supply is near certain and most troops can really sleep.

As to more emotional and combat perils: Everytime a coalition soldier injures ones leg, a dozen guerrillas lose their fucking lives. Everytime an entire squad of coalition troops dies, they have propably had time to rape one Iraqi village and turn it into glass.

And just so you know, I'm waiting my lawsuit just now about my "dereliction of patriotic duty". I've done my share of nationalism.

[Fictional]

No way, it is incomparable. I'm sorry it just isn't, you are delusional to think this. I didn't see any massacres of American soldiers in Vietnam but I did see My fucking Lai! I didn't see any camps for soldiers in Iraq where innocent men and women were beaten the shit out of and stripped naked, no I just saw Iraqi's facing this at the hands of the soldiers.

Of course, you're thinking of the corrupt, facist ****s in the Army, like I said above, not all Soldiers are like that.

But consider those who didn't rape, beat and kill the innocent, think of those who've helped in Iraq, sure it might not be many, but they are out there, they're who deserve respect, they've gone through more shit than you can handle, soldiers in Vietnam had alot of hell, Spikes on springs, hidden bombs, it all comes down to war, aslong as war exists, the above will exist, hell you know that I'm not agreeing with war or soldiers, but give credit to those who've been in a war and saved lifes, rescued people, had arms, legs and other limbs blown off by those of other Armys.

[Pogue]

Of course, you're thinking of the corrupt, facist ****s in the Army, like I said above, not all Soldiers are like that.

But consider those who didn't rape, beat and kill the innocent, think of those who've helped in Iraq, sure it might not be many, but they are out there, they're who deserve respect, they've gone through more shit than you can handle, soldiers in Vietnam had alot of hell, Spikes on springs, hidden bombs, it all comes down to war, aslong as war exists, the above will exist, hell you know that I'm not agreeing with war or soldiers, but give credit to those who've been in a war and saved lifes, rescued people, had arms, legs and other limbs blown off by those of other Armys.

I wont give credit to them. They haven't done anything exceptional. They've invaded a country where they are not welcome, been resisted and tried to survive. They haven't helped anyone. Saying the US/British Army are helping people over there is the equivalent of saying someone who beats the shit out of you then chucks you a plaster (band aid for our American comrades) is 'helping you'.

[Fictional]

Clearly, because giving aid is just, fucked up.

[khad]

Bullshit, the soldiers and victims go through the same ordeal, they can both be injured and have limbs blown off, doesn't mean the victim is any more terrorised than the soldier, I don't care what you think, soldiers have a hard time too, they deserve respect and if you're not going to give it to them then you're an idiot and should consider joining the military yourself just to see how much they go through.
Just one of the many reasons why Marx thought that professional mercenaries were worthless imperialist shits, and I do too.


To find parallels to the Sepoy atrocities, we need not, as some London papers pretend, fall back on the middle ages, not, even wander beyond the history of contemporary England. All we want is to study the first Chinese war, an event, so to say, of yesterday. The English soldiery then committed abominations for the mere fun of it; their passions being neither sanctified by religious fanaticism nor exacerbated by hatred against an overbearing and conquering race, nor provoked by the stern resistance of a heroic enemy. The violations of women, the spittings of children, the roastings of whole villages, were then mere wanton sports, not recorded by Mandarins, but by British officers themselves...

The infamous mutilations committed by the Sepoys remind one of the practices of the Christian Byzantine Empire, or the prescriptions of Emperor Charles V.’s criminal law, or the English punishments for high treason, as still recorded by Judge Blackstone. With Hindoos, whom their religion has made virtuosi in the art of self-torturing, these tortures inflicted on the enemies of their race and creed appear quite natural, and must appear still more so to the English, who, only some years since, still used to draw revenues from the Juggernaut festivals, protecting and assisting the bloody rites of a religion of cruelty.
Wave the bloody flag all you want, but you're not the only one with a military family around here. Some folks here have had 3-4 generations of being on the receiving end of your British bullets, so don't be an arrogant ass.

You talk big about respecting soldiers for the sake of their "job." Tell me, do you respect and give good wishes to the soldiers of Hezbollah and the Taleban? What about the RA? Don't be a hypocrite.

[khad]

I know more about the army life than you'd think. Some armies actually test their soldiers, but the US army is a fucking holiday compared to others. They actually have beds, real tents, fucking video games and music! Their food supply is near certain and most troops can really sleep.

As to more emotional and combat perils: Everytime a coalition soldier injures ones leg, a dozen guerrillas lose their fucking lives. Everytime an entire squad of coalition troops dies, they have propably had time to rape one Iraqi village and turn it into glass.

And just so you know, I'm waiting my lawsuit just now about my "dereliction of patriotic duty". I've done my share of nationalism.

If you've ever lived in one of those soldier-infested military towns in the States, you will see firsthand the material benefits these mercenaries have over the "common working class." If they play their cards right, many can and do retire by age 40 or 45, and many have nothing but utter disdain for "civvies." Thus is the nature of a professional army--mercenary guard of the capitalist state.

[Fictional]

Have any of you seen first hand the effects of war on the invaders and the invaded?
For fuck sake, why can't you realise that I don't agree with war, I don't agree with what they're doing, but I give respect to any man that's been told they can help a country and then get limbs blown appart or friends killed beside them.
Is that being a Hypocrit? Then fuck you, I don't give a shit, I'm simply telling you, you can't call Soldiers idiots when you've done fuck all but sit on your ass and post on a forum.

[khad]

Is that being a Hypocrit? Then fuck you, I don't give a shit, I'm simply telling you, you can't call Soldiers idiots when you've done fuck all but sit on your ass and post on a forum.
I didn't murder proletarians around the globe. You may think that's work, but that's just fascism.

[makesi]

Have any of you seen first hand the effects of war on the invaders and the invaded?
For fuck sake, why can't you realise that I don't agree with war, I don't agree with what they're doing, but I give respect to any man that's been told they can help a country and then get limbs blown appart or friends killed beside them.
Is that being a Hypocrit? Then fuck you, I don't give a shit, I'm simply telling you, you can't call Soldiers idiots when you've done fuck all but sit on your ass and post on a forum.


How do you respond to an argument that is essentially equivalent to a bumper sticker.

"Freedom Isn't Free!"

[Brother No. 1]

Is that being a Hypocrit? Then fuck you, I don't give a shit, I'm simply telling you, you can't call Soldiers idiots when you've done fuck all but sit on your ass and post on a forum.


Soliders are used to futher Imperialistic gains, Example: Vietnam and Afghanistan, and lets not forget what they do after they have destroyed the former goverment and allowed a puppet state to take control and oppress proletariat. Not To mention lets remember what US troops do in Iraq now. But you dont know any of us, our lives, so you can't critize our lives since you dont know anything about us.

[Fictional]

I clearly do know something about you, you act as if you don't know shit, because well.. if you did know shit we wouldn't be arguin about the fact people who walk through mine fields, see comrades walk over land mines, have RPG's fired at you, see friends head, literally blown off, you'd learn to respect those who've done well but had nothing but mortar fire shot at you, just like I respect the civilians who're getting hell in this conlifct, I respect those who're trying to help but get nothing back.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I clearly do know something about you, you act as if you don't know shit, because well.. if you did know shit we wouldn't be arguin about the fact people who walk through mine fields, see comrades walk over land mines, have RPG's fired at you, see friends head, literally blown off, you'd learn to respect those who've done well but had nothing but mortar fire shot at you, just like I respect the civilians who're getting hell in this conlifct, I respect those who're trying to help but get nothing back.
I think the important thing to recognize is the difference between enlistees (G.I.s in the US) and the upper officers who are generally careerists and the architects of war that are ruling class.

Partially we need to see that GIs in Empires are usually the most oppressed members of the empire and so having a anti-war position that somehow equates the grunts with the officers and generals alienates us from oppressed and working class communities that get the brunt of capitalism's empire building (on both sides).

Secondly, a hostile attitude towards grunts isolates us from potentially building a resistance within the military. By recognizing the class connection to the way imperial armies are organized, we can put a wedge in the Imperial war machine. We can support resiting solders, AWOL soldiers, veterans who can offer first-hand rebuttals of the ruling-class lies about the war.

At the same time, we should also be clear that doing a good job as a soldier is not honorable and not in the soldier's own interests - many many combat veterans also come to this conclusion and supporting those veterans with the credibility to talk to the enlistees about to go or active soldiers is key.

[Fictional]

First of all, thanks.

Secondly, I couldn't agree more, we do need to make a connection in the military, of course it's not honorable being a soldier, a killing machine, neither is 'fighting for the country' it's bullshit, but it's vital we show respect to those who've had a hard time, they've been told they're fighting for the country, they've been told they're doing a good job and it's okay, then they're told to help and get attacked, can you see what I'm saying?

Ragardless of what anyone says in this post, I'll forever respect soldiers in said posistion.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I'm surprised at the amount of anti-soldier stuff in this thread. I'm as anti-military as anyone (I don't want to get into internet bragging, but I have been involved in a lot of anti-militarist stuff), but I really don't see why we need to demonise poor kids who sign up because there's no decent jobs anywhere else. I hate British and American imperialism, but that still doesn't make it any less tragic when soldiers are needlessly killed in wars they didn't choose. We can mourn the deaths of Western troops and the civilians in countries they invade. Gravedigger gets it spot on, IMO. Mutinies in the military are one of the most effective ways of ending imperialist wars, but we'll do nothing to encourage them if we just write all soldiers off as evil murdering scum.

[Coggeh]

Just going to give my two cents .

If they were that good of a person, they go awol for the great of humanity. But I dont see that happening, instead I see them following whatever orders are sent their way.

You say that like its so black and white of a choice .

Fuck them, if they join the army then they know what they are getting themselves in for.I seriously doubt the troops fighting in afghanistan understand that their serving the ruling elites and imperialism and frankly i don't think they give two shits . Why do you think they sign up for the army in the first place ? is it because they love their country ? maybe a minority . But most see it as a chance of getting a real college education, a decent job where their is none . Most troops come from the poorest backgrounds in the US and its stuck up middle class attitude to label them as fascists or idiots etc when all they want is a job or an education.

And the army can come down on the side of the workers in times of struggle , Russia for example , loyal troops in Venezuala etc .

If you argue that soldiers are the tools of capitalism and cannot become revolutionary then you can argue that about cops , security guards , hell even doctors , nurses , bus drivers . They don't like serving in the army , many have no choice .If some people were actually organised and worked in working class campaigns they wouldn't be such a perfectionist and would see that .

I think lenins words on the actions of soldiers in Russia against the bourgeois is a perfect example of why we can't be petit about trying to get troops into the revolutionary movement and not shut them out as some evil patriots who love to serve the rich .

Lenin : The army & the people

The soldiers are voicing the real demands of the people, demands that are common to the overwhelming majority of the people, far better than those gentlemen, the enlightened bourgeoisie. The character and the main features of the movement among the armed forces express far more accurately the essence of the main and fundamental forms of the struggle for emancipation under present conditions than the tactics of the Cadets.

The soldiers in the Warsaw Area are demanding a constituent assembly. They are demanding freedom of assembly and of association for soldiers “without the consent or presence of officers”. They are demanding that “military service be performed in the soldiers’ native districts”, the right to wear civilian dress when off duty, and the right to elect soldiers’ representatives to supervise the soldiers’ mess and to act as judges to try offences committed by soldiers.
Lenin: The Armed Forces and the Revolution

Gone for ever are the days when Russian troops could be sent abroad to suppress a revolution—as happened in 1849. Today the armed forces have irretrievably turned away from the autocracy. They have not yet become wholly revolutionary. The political consciousness of the soldiers and sailors is still at a very low level. But the important thing is that it has already awakened, that the soldiers have started a movement of their own, that the spirit of liberty has penetrated into the barracks everywhere.

[Lynx]

A voluntary army (created by and for the state) is not a revolutionary-minded army.

[*Red*Alert]

More dead British soldiers please.

Maybe then the public might realise that the occupation of another country, which is being resisted with fierce force, should not be carried on. But I doubt it, as I was watching a documentary about the BNP recently, and found out that a lot of those attached to it have either a military background or their family lost a daughter, sister or son in the new imperialist war in Afghanistan.

At least the Six Counties has got a rest for a while. If it were to start up again I don't think the British Army would have the resources to deal with both the Middle East and the North.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Less working-class kids getting killed for the interests of any nation-state, please.

[Trystan]

More dead British soldiers please.

Maybe then the public might realise that the occupation of another country, which is being resisted with fierce force, should not be carried on. But I doubt it, as I was watching a documentary about the BNP recently, and found out that a lot of those attached to it have either a military background or their family lost a daughter, sister or son in the new imperialist war in Afghanistan.

At least the Six Counties has got a rest for a while. If it were to start up again I don't think the British Army would have the resources to deal with both the Middle East and the North.

So more dead soldiers = more BNP supporters? Oh, clever. You sound blood thirsty. The troops should be pulled out, we shouldn't be calling for their deaths. What is the matter with you?

[*Red*Alert]

So more dead soldiers = more BNP supporters? Oh, clever. You sound blood thirsty. The troops should be pulled out, we shouldn't be calling for their deaths. What is the matter with you?

Well lets just say I'm a BritishArmyophobe given their track record in the North of Ireland, which is littered with extrajudicial murder and co-operation with Loyalist paramilitaries.

To me, those serving in the British Army can only act as counter-revolutionaries in the long term. I know that many of Ireland's pioneering Socialist Revolutionaries, including James Connolly once served in the British Army, but the modern generation seem more conservative and more likely to be against the Left.

[Coggeh]

Well lets just say I'm a BritishArmyophobe given their track record in the North of Ireland, which is littered with extrajudicial murder and co-operation with Loyalist paramilitaries.

To me, those serving in the British Army can only act as counter-revolutionaries in the long term. I know that many of Ireland's pioneering Socialist Revolutionaries, including James Connolly once served in the British Army, but the modern generation seem more conservative and more likely to be against the Left.
Pronouncing support for the IRA(which is a complete reactionary sectarian organisation IMO) doesn't really help that .Workers unity against the bosses , bureaucratic trade union leaders , and a sectarian bourgeois government is the best way to establish socialism in the north .

[Jimmie Higgins]

A voluntary army (created by and for the state) is not a revolutionary-minded army.Well, this is what the right-wing argues, but in Vietnam, the first and most organized revolts were of volunteers. And these soldiers in the 60s were probably from better backgrounds and had more options than the GIs of today who can not go to college unless they go into the military or are from ghettos or rural areas with no other way out.

It's a myth that only draftees in Vietnam resisted - they were actually more likly to just dodge the draft or go AWOL than to resist. The Volunteers radicalized and were the ones who came back and organized Veteran anti-war groups, just as volunteers today formed IVAW.

The US military spends millions of dollars in advertising and projecting an image that the US military is there to "liberate" people and that real battle is a thing of the past and if you join up, you will sit in an office learning computer skills.

When these latino men and rural whites arrive and see that they are basically used as bait - drive through a occupied city so that they can trip roadside bombs or get a sniper to shoot at them so that the planes know where to drop the bombs - they may get a little disillusioned and start questioning what US "liberation" really means.

It becomes a problem though if there radicalizing or even just questioning soldiers are dismissed by the left wing... the radical right is not doing that. Evangelicals and white supremacists are organizing dissatisfied soldiers as we speak and explaining to these soldiers that the war is not being "run correctly" because the US is treating it as an occupation but it's really a race/holy war. Well we need to build the anti-war movement and resources for soldiers who want to resist because I think our explanation for Imperialist war and the class nature of it will make a lot more sense to soldiers than nazi and christian explanations and we can help these soldiers figure out that their real enemy isn't the kid defending his town, it's the generals and the ruling class.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well lets just say I'm a BritishArmyophobe given their track record in the North of Ireland, which is littered with extrajudicial murder and co-operation with Loyalist paramilitaries.

To me, those serving in the British Army can only act as counter-revolutionaries in the long term. I know that many of Ireland's pioneering Socialist Revolutionaries, including James Connolly once served in the British Army, but the modern generation seem more conservative and more likely to be against the Left.

And yet the British empire used poverty-stricken Irish kids to fight in Africa and India for the empire. This is the way class works in Imperial armies and it is the biggest kink in the armor of Empires. Sure as long as the empire's soldiers are "doing their job" this is a bad thing and not in anyone's interests except the ruling class. But because "a good job" is not in the interests of the soldier's themselves, we can get them to do basically a military version of a work stoppage, we can get them to refuse orders (strike) and we can even convince them that they are better off turning their guns on their officers rather than the people like them that they are shooting at.

[Jimmie Higgins]

GIs aren't officers and they aren't cops. If the GIs aren't convince to turn the guns against their officers, then the revolution can't win.

[TC]

Soldiers having tough lives does not justify murder that only furthers the imperialist agenda. It's always about soldiers this soldiers that. For a communist forum I hear very little complaining about the conditions of the victims of soldiers. They die in masses, their life is tougher, their sacrifices bigger and all this while they know to fight superior enemy. I will not hear a word that martyrs the coalition imperialist troops, not until they start having a truly hard life.

Besides, western soldiers being martyrs of the system or not, it is irrelevant. Their only real choice is to obey, or not obey and take the consequenses. It is selfish for the soldier to look only the effects the choice has on him, while the choice affects hundreds if not thousands of people. Most notably people potentially to be shot by that person. While the choice affects so many, the only choice that a moral person chooses is the punishment. All other options are crimes against humanity, and only the volume of that crime remains a question.

So true.

[JimmyJazz]

There job is to "protect" the people in Iraq

Bullshit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4i5ZUfpxnV0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iTdxBECos8

[khad]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iTdxBECos8
"I was supposed to be guarding my unit from this detainee, and at that point I realized that I was guarding the detainee from my unit."

Truly, there are only a few good men.

[JimmyJazz]

Do you ever make any other point? You're like a broken record.

[khad]

Do you ever make any other point? You're like a broken record.
I do, but you don't care to read them. I guess it's only because these things annoy YOU. :rolleyes:

[FreeFocus]

Want to know a better way to encourage imperial decomposition? No, it isn't "supporting" imperialist troops. Your dreams of a "troop uprising" on the side of the working class simply won't happen, particularly in a place like the US or Israel (I mean, lulz, honestly). The situation in Tsarist Russia was quite a bit different. Not only were propaganda techniques not as developed, but the entire culture was not predicated upon imperialist propaganda and an imperial mythology. Moreover, the Tsarist army was very poorly organized and the conditions existed for Russian soldiers to logically be very dissatisfied with their situation. It happened in the context of a strong anti-ruling class atmosphere.

Yes, there can be troop rebellions, but they won't happen on a meaningful scale in every state. The history is different. The psychological and sociological realities are different. And obviously, the material circumstances are different. Yeah, militaries are always by default reactionary, because they're a state apparatus. However, there can be pockets of resistance. In a place like the US or Israel (hell, in Israel you see a surprising amount of troop resistance, although it's still not that much), these pockets will be just that, pockets. You talk about "GI resistance" in Vietnam. Yeah, not that impressive, after like 8 years of occupying the country and murdering the Vietnamese. Yeah, not that impressive when it was never entire battalions, much less more meaningful units such as a brigade or division. Sorry, but one little guy in 10,000 troops fragging his officer does not constitute the revolutionary potential of the military.

The best way to smash imperialism is to put your faith in the oppressed populations which are being attacked, and the insurgent groups that fight against imperialist occupation. Che called for "two, three, many Vietnams."

[khad]

Want to know a better way to encourage imperial decomposition? No, it isn't "supporting" imperialist troops. Your dreams of a "troop uprising" on the side of the working class simply won't happen, particularly in a place like the US or Israel (I mean, lulz, honestly). The situation in Tsarist Russia was quite a bit different. Not only were propaganda techniques not as developed, but the entire culture was not predicated upon imperialist propaganda and an imperial mythology. Moreover, the Tsarist army was very poorly organized and the conditions existed for Russian soldiers to logically be very dissatisfied with their situation. It happened in the context of a strong anti-ruling class atmosphere.

The Tsarist troops were conscripts. The entire society was a conscript society. Of course according to gravedigger, conscripts are worthless and only volunteers rebel (a claim I've disproven in this very thread).


Sorry, but one little guy in 10,000 troops fragging his officer does not constitute the revolutionary potential of the military.

The best way to smash imperialism is to put your faith in the oppressed populations which are being attacked, and the insurgent groups that fight against imperialist occupation. Che called for "two, three, many Vietnams."

I have a comrade who studies troop resistance. After years of dealing with this stuff, and despite going in the research with the best of intentions, he's concluded that yes, it was pretty damn marginal.

[FreeFocus]

I believe in the revolutionary potential of conscripts much more than I do of volunteers. And I think the Tsarist army being comprised of conscripts was a major condition for Russian troops to be dissatisfied with their position.

[khad]

I believe in the revolutionary potential of conscripts much more than I do of volunteers. And I think the Tsarist army being comprised of conscripts was a major condition for Russian troops to be dissatisfied with their position.
That was Marx's position. Throughout the 19th century professional soldiers were employed by the state to smash workers' uprisings. We all remember what happened to the Commune and the insurgents of '48. This is experience borne out of historical fact.

[Hexen]

Soldiers are basically manipulated puppets doing the powers may be's dirty work.

[Hoggy_RS]

Just going to give my two cents .

You say that like its so black and white of a choice .
I seriously doubt the troops fighting in afghanistan understand that their serving the ruling elites and imperialism and frankly i don't think they give two shits . Why do you think they sign up for the army in the first place ? is it because they love their country ? maybe a minority . But most see it as a chance of getting a real college education, a decent job where their is none . Most troops come from the poorest backgrounds in the US and its stuck up middle class attitude to label them as fascists or idiots etc when all they want is a job or an education.

Well my comment didn't refer to everyone who works in any armed forces, i was referring to those serving in Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm sorry but i'll never be able to feel sympathy for those who are soldiers of imperialist forces. Its a pity that they see the army as their only option. I didn't claim they were fascist or idiots(i dunno if that was aimed at my post)

[FreeFocus]

You say that like its so black and white of a choice .
I seriously doubt the troops fighting in afghanistan understand that their serving the ruling elites and imperialism and frankly i don't think they give two shits . Why do you think they sign up for the army in the first place ? is it because they love their country ? maybe a minority . But most see it as a chance of getting a real college education, a decent job where their is none . Most troops come from the poorest backgrounds in the US and its stuck up middle class attitude to label them as fascists or idiots etc when all they want is a job or an education.

Exactly, I agree with the bold. I don't think they give two shits either.

Which is why I don't give a flying fuck about them.

[ls]

Well my comment didn't refer to everyone who works in any armed forces, i was referring to those serving in Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm sorry but i'll never be able to feel sympathy for those who are soldiers of imperialist forces. Its a pity that they see the army as their only option. I didn't claim they were fascist or idiots(i dunno if that was aimed at my post)

Well, some people at least make points that they are not conscript armies, which are to be honest easier to understand.

Soldiers of imperialist forces who are forced to fight. Would you and FreeFocus consider them 'traitors' too?

[*Red*Alert]

Pronouncing support for the IRA(which is a complete reactionary sectarian organisation IMO) doesn't really help that .Workers unity against the bosses , bureaucratic trade union leaders , and a sectarian bourgeois government is the best way to establish socialism in the north .

Its a broad church, and certainly not a sectarian organisation. I agree with the rest of your post, but the likelihood of organising from the outside is futile in my opinion.

As for Sinn Fein's participation in government, I and the vast majority of party members, have been opposed to many things which we have implemented as part of a coalition with sectarian Unionists who are desperately searching for a hardline position to occupy.

[FreeFocus]

Soldiers of imperialist forces who are forced to fight. Would you and FreeFocus consider them 'traitors' too?

You mean draftees? I can sympathize a bit more with them, but once they deploy and start killing innocent people and destroying their land and culture, what makes them different from the people who signed up?

What's the difference if a person put a gun to your head on their own and if someone pointed a gun at another person to get them to turn their gun on you? There's still a glock pointed at your face. In the latter case I wouldn't be wrestling with the person who pointed the gun at the other guy so he'd point his gun at me - I'd deal with the person in my face first and then deal with the first fucker.

[Lynx]

What punishment do soldiers face for refusing to carry out orders?
A comparison with punishments meted out to soldiers in past conflicts might be useful.

[*Red*Alert]

What punishment do soldiers face for refusing to carry out orders?
A comparison with punishments meted out to soldiers in past conflicts might be useful.

As of WWII it was death by firing squad.

THAT's why I don't think the strategy of "turning them on their masters" will work very well, in fact, it has yet to happen except for in that workplace in China as posted earlier.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Want to know a better way to encourage imperial decomposition? No, it isn't "supporting" imperialist troops. Your dreams of a "troop uprising" on the side of the working class simply won't happen, particularly in a place like the US or Israel (I mean, lulz, honestly).
"Troop uprising"? No, I was talking about resistance and mutiny. This can be anything from desertion to fragging to organized rebellion. Of course resistance from the occupied population is the most crucial thing, but disobedience in the imperialist military can help grind the military machine down.

The resistance during Vietnam terrified the US ruling class and so they got rid of the draft and stopped using ground troops in Vietnam and were hobbled for the next few decades.

Secondly, there is a big difference between the Israeli and US military: Israel is a settler state and that is different than soldiers who are sent as an imperialist force.


The situation in Tsarist Russia was quite a bit different. Not only were propaganda techniques not as developed, but the entire culture was not predicated upon imperialist propaganda and an imperial mythology. Moreover, the Tsarist army was very poorly organized and the conditions existed for Russian soldiers to logically be very dissatisfied with their situation.Yeah, they just thought they were fighting for God and to save God's representative on earth, the Tsar, from German militarism!! Not as much propaganda in World War 1 ----- are you kidding?!


It happened in the context of a strong anti-ruling class atmosphere.Yes! This is the crucial thing! The troops knew that they could be supported by the peasantry and working class. Without this, troops knew that if the left the front, or disobeyed orders, they would be shot.


You talk about "GI resistance" in Vietnam. Yeah, not that impressive, after like 8 years of occupying the country and murdering the Vietnamese. Yeah, not that impressive when it was never entire battalions, much less more meaningful units such as a brigade or division. Sorry, but one little guy in 10,000 troops fragging his officer does not constitute the revolutionary potential of the military.

The best way to smash imperialism is to put your faith in the oppressed populations which are being attacked, and the insurgent groups that fight against imperialist occupation. Che called for "two, three, many Vietnams."Yes and even when Nixon knew that the war was unwinable he kept the war going to destroy the country and make a lesson out of them. This alone is a reason why we need to try and build resistance in the military - as long as the US military is able to continue, it will even if there is a national liberation movement or other resistance.

Of course resisance of the people in the occupied country is the main determining factor, but protests in the Imperialist countries and resistance by the ranks in the occupying military is also central in our fight against imperialism from within the belly of the beast.

[FreeFocus]

"Troop uprising"? No, I was talking about resistance and mutiny. This can be anything from desertion to fragging to organized rebellion. Of course resistance from the occupied population is the most crucial thing, but disobedience in the imperialist military can help grind the military machine down.

The resistance during Vietnam terrified the US ruling class and so they got rid of the draft and stopped using ground troops in Vietnam and were hobbled for the next few decades.

Secondly, there is a big difference between the Israeli and US military: Israel is a settler state and that is different than soldiers who are sent as an imperialist force.

Yeah, they just thought they were fighting for God and to save God's representative on earth, the Tsar, from German militarism!! Not as much propaganda in World War 1 ----- are you kidding?!

Yes! This is the crucial thing! The troops knew that they could be supported by the peasantry and working class. Without this, troops knew that if the left the front, or disobeyed orders, they would be shot.

Yes and even when Nixon knew that the war was unwinable he kept the war going to destroy the country and make a lesson out of them. This alone is a reason why we need to try and build resistance in the military - as long as the US military is able to continue, it will even if there is a national liberation movement or other resistance.

Of course resisance of the people in the occupied country is the main determining factor, but protests in the Imperialist countries and resistance by the ranks in the occupying military is also central in our fight against imperialism from within the belly of the beast.

It can help, sure, but it will never be anything more than marginal at best.

One thing I forgot to include in my last post was that, yes, generals and the rest of the ruling class were getting concerned, but I think they just generally don't care. If I know that resistance will be marginal at best, they obviously do too.

And are you fucking serious? The United States isn't a settler state? What do you call 300 years of the Indian Wars? Israel has always been the child of the US, it carries on its legacy and acts as a garrison state. If you look at the founding logic of Israel, it basically mirrors the ethnic cleansing logic spouted off by the likes of Jefferson, Polk, and other imperialists early on in US history. Israel learned from the US in this regard, as did Australia, for example.

Propaganda really took off after WWII because everyone started studying the Nazis and their meteoric rise. Something like that hadn't been seen before in terms of mobilizing the vast majority of the population after being a pretty much irrelevant party just a decade or so earlier. Propaganda now .vs. propaganda in the days of WWI has developed by leaps and bounds. Firstly, you have different media to use - televisions, internet, video games, etc, that you didn't have back then. Second, the strength and reach of the state has grown since WWI days.

You can support GI "resistance." I won't stop you. It won't receive anything more than passive support from me, though, because I don't foresee it developing into anything real.

[Jimmie Higgins]

One thing I forgot to include in my last post was that, yes, generals and the rest of the ruling class were getting concerned, but I think they just generally don't care. If I know that resistance will be marginal at best, they obviously do too.The generals and ruling class are not concerned about mutiny?!! Yeah, when people join the military, the military just drills people and builds discipline for the hell of it? The military punishes disobedience because they are just a bunch of meanies.


And are you fucking serious? The United States isn't a settler state?Yeah, not for a while now. The US military isn't the calvery any more.


What do you call 300 years of the Indian Wars? Israel has always been the child of the US, it carries on its legacy and acts as a garrison state. If you look at the founding logic of Israel, it basically mirrors the ethnic cleansing logic spouted off by the likes of Jefferson, Polk, and other imperialists early on in US history. Israel learned from the US in this regard, as did Australia, for example.Yeah, Israel is CURRENTLY a settler state unlike the US whcih was once a settler state and has moved on to other things. Argueing the US is a settler state is like arguing that the US military is a liberation army because of the revolutionary war.


Propaganda really took off after WWII because everyone started studying the Nazis and their meteoric rise. Something like that hadn't been seen before in terms of mobilizing the vast majority of the population after being a pretty much irrelevant party just a decade or so earlier. Propaganda now .vs. propaganda in the days of WWI has developed by leaps and bounds. Firstly, you have different media to use - televisions, internet, video games, etc, that you didn't have back then. Second, the strength and reach of the state has grown since WWI days.Modes of propaganda developed, but as accounts of Bolshiviks and other radicals during WWI in Russia can tell you, the begining of the war was met with a surge of nationalistsic fervor among workers and pesants. This changed because of the stories soldiers brough home with them (not the mention the body count).

[FreeFocus]

If a state is founded on ethnic cleansing and genocide, it can only exist by maintaining those conditions of poverty and oppression for those who were dispossessed. To posit that a state founded on this somehow, someway has that history negated by the passage of just a bit of time is ridiculous. Surely, Native scholar Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz (http://www.counterpunch.org/ortiz10122004.html) disagrees vehemently with you, as do I, and people like Ward Churchill and John Brown (http://www.truthout.org/article/john-brown-our-indian-wars-are-not-over-yet), writer for TomDispatch.com. Settler states remain settler states. Northern Ireland is still a settler state, despite the Scots and English settling NI centuries ago. Is your position that since NI is part of the UK that it's no longer a settler state since the UK has "moved on?" Ludicrous.

Just imagine in 2100 someone claiming that Israel was "no longer" a settler state because Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from Israel proper 150 years ago. Yeah, so long ago, and of course the effects would still be felt, but who cares, right? Just get over your poverty and loss of land, silly Arabs. :rolleyes:

Furthermore, your Revolutionary War analogy doesn't work at all. That wasn't even a revolution from a leftist perspective. It established a racist, slave-holding settler state. Colonists were angered because Britain didn't want them to cross the demarcation line. They wanted to keep stealing land while Britain took the troop casualties (French and Indian War).

It's shameful for a leftist to articulate the position you just did.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You are being ridiculous. I never said the US was never a settler-state, just that the material conditions have now changed. The US settlement project is done, US imperialism is primarily carried out through proxie armies, economic pressure, occupation and so on - not settlement. You may as well argue that the US is a slave-state by your logic! Certainly the wealth and power of the US ruing class was built on slavery, right?


If a state is founded on ethnic cleansing and genocide, it can only exist by maintaining those conditions of poverty and oppression for those who were dispossessed. To posit that a state founded on this somehow, someway has that history negated by the passage of just a bit of time is ridiculous. Surely, Native scholar Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz (http://www.counterpunch.org/ortiz10122004.html) disagrees vehemently with you, as do I, and people like Ward Churchill and John Brown (http://www.truthout.org/article/john-brown-our-indian-wars-are-not-over-yet), writer for TomDispatch.com. Settler states remain settler states. Why do settler states remain settler states when all the features of a settler state are gone? The US is not currently occupying other countries for controll over the land itself, the US now operates as an Imperialst power.

How the hell do you equate a US soldier in Iraq with an IDF soldier or the US calvery fighting against native Americans? It's a-historial nonsense. Armies in settler states in effect do get material beniits for colaboration with their ruling class. US soldiers are not paving the way for US settlement!!! You are being silly!

Soldiers in imperialist armies are not in that position, they are sent not for raw conquest but for empire being able to reshape the world. They are in Iraq so that the US ruling class can spread its military influence in the region and help control oil supplies so that it can dictate trade terms with China and Russia or any other oil-needed competators. As much as the US military tries to convince us, US GIs do not get a benifit from US imperialism, they are not safer, they are not enriching themselves.


Northern Ireland is still a settler state, despite the Scots and English settling NI centuries ago. Is your position that since NI is part of the UK that it's no longer a settler state since the UK has "moved on?" Ludicrous.You are rediculous. There are generally two ways settler states operate - using the native population as a workforce with 2nd class status (which N. Ireland still does but Israel does not) or you can push the native population off the land and replace it with imported labor (which Isreael is doing and the US used to do until it effectivly accomplished that murderous task).


Just imagine in 2100 someone claiming that Israel was "no longer" a settler state because Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from Israel proper 150 years ago. Yeah, so long ago, and of course the effects would still be felt, but who cares, right? Just get over your poverty and loss of land, silly Arabs. :rolleyes:Well let's hope it does not come to that, but if Palistianians are effectivley powerless and occupy as much land proportiantely as native americans in the US do, then Israel's military ventures will serve a function other than it does as a settler state.


Furthermore, your Revolutionary War analogy doesn't work at all. That wasn't even a revolution from a leftist perspective. It established a racist, slave-holding settler state. Colonists were angered because Britain didn't want them to cross the demarcation line. They wanted to keep stealing land while Britain took the troop casualties (French and Indian War).

It's shameful for a leftist to articulate the position you just did.

The revolutionary war was a bourgoise revolution - it was also incomplete which led to the civil war later. There were many different interests involved in the Revolution, from populist anger, to the emerging artisans and merchants to the large land-owners. The colonial rulers had to give into many popular demands in order to win the revolution. How is it shameful for a leftist to support this?

[FreeFocus]

You are being ridiculous. I never said the US was never a settler-state, just that the material conditions have now changed. The US settlement project is done, US imperialism is primarily carried out through proxie armies, economic pressure, occupation and so on - not settlement. You may as well argue that the US is a slave-state by your logic! Certainly the wealth and power of the US ruing class was built on slavery, right?

Why do settler states remain settler states when all the features of a settler state are gone? The US is not currently occupying other countries for controll over the land itself, the US now operates as an Imperialst power.

How the hell do you equate a US soldier in Iraq with an IDF soldier or the US calvery fighting against native Americans? It's a-historial nonsense. Armies in settler states in effect do get material beniits for colaboration with their ruling class. US soldiers are not paving the way for US settlement!!! You are being silly!

Soldiers in imperialist armies are not in that position, they are sent not for raw conquest but for empire being able to reshape the world. They are in Iraq so that the US ruling class can spread its military influence in the region and help control oil supplies so that it can dictate trade terms with China and Russia or any other oil-needed competators. As much as the US military tries to convince us, US GIs do not get a benifit from US imperialism, they are not safer, they are not enriching themselves.

You are rediculous. There are generally two ways settler states operate - using the native population as a workforce with 2nd class status (which N. Ireland still does but Israel does not) or you can push the native population off the land and replace it with imported labor (which Isreael is doing and the US used to do until it effectivly accomplished that murderous task).

Well let's hope it does not come to that, but if Palistianians are effectivley powerless and occupy as much land proportiantely as native americans in the US do, then Israel's military ventures will serve a function other than it does as a settler state.

The revolutionary war was a bourgoise revolution - it was also incomplete which led to the civil war later. There were many different interests involved in the Revolution, from populist anger, to the emerging artisans and merchants to the large land-owners. The colonial rulers had to give into many popular demands in order to win the revolution. How is it shameful for a leftist to support this?

Actually, yes, a good deal of American wealth was built on slavery. How can a leftist deny this? You look at a lot of the biggest American corporations, they trace their roots back to the times of slavery and they got fat off of slave labor. In fact, African-American activists have sued corporations in the recent past for this (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0221-02.htm). From a Commondreams article (what I just linked to):


So far, the reparations legal team has publicly identified five companies it says have slave ties: insurers Aetna, New York Life and AIG and financial giants J.P. Morgan Chase Manhattan Bank and FleetBoston Financial Group.
Independently, USA TODAY has found documentation tying several others to slavery:
* Investment banks Brown Bros. Harriman and Lehman Bros.
* Railroads Norfolk Southern, CSX, Union Pacific and Canadian National.
* Textile maker WestPoint Stevens.
* Newspaper publishers Knight Ridder, Tribune, Media General, Advance Publications, E.W. Scripps and Gannett, parent and publisher of USA TODAY.



The list of corporations tied to slavery is likely to grow. Eventually, it could include energy companies that once used slaves to lay oil lines beneath Southern cities, mining companies whose slaves dug for coal and salt, tobacco marketers that relied on slaves to cultivate and cure tobacco.

You may have thought your comment was witty, but unfortunately, no dice there. That's a serious issue and corporations are still benefiting from slave labor - that was what their current success was built on.

Settler states remain settler states, even when the "settlement project," as you put it, is done, because in order to lose that distinction they'd have to dissolve. The term "settler state" refers to the behavior of the state and the nature of the founding of the state. It has to do with how the state came about. Moreover, settler states are inherently imperialist, exerting economic and political control over other nations, which they happen to forcefully incorporate into their borders.

I disagree that the US does not occupy countries for land. Perhaps not in terms of land speculation and the like, but for geostrategic position, you bet your ass they do. Afghanistan, for example, isn't just about natural gas and pipelines, it's about getting a foothold in Central Asia to act as a check on Russia and China. If Afghanistan were in Antarctica, NATO wouldn't fucking be occupying it.

What do you mean how do I equate them? An imperialist troop in Iraq treats Iraqis as subhumans, participates in massacres (Haditha, Ishaqi, etc), etc. No, they aren't occupying the country to send American settlers there, plenty land enough has been taken. Nonetheless, like gold in indigenous territory was the driving force behind American invasion, oil was in Iraq. Not access to oil, necessarily, but control of oil.

Also, US troops get subsidized by the government for their crimes. Additionally, who needs to buy them off when their psyche has already been conquered? The psychological is just as important as the concrete/material.

And on a side note, you didn't even bother to read Dunbar-Ortiz's article (http://www.counterpunch.org/ortiz10122004.html) or Brown's article (http://www.truthout.org/article/john-brown-our-indian-wars-are-not-over-yet), did you?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Actually, yes, a good deal of American wealth was built on slavery. How can a leftist deny this?I'm not denying this LOOK:

Certainly the wealth and power of the US ruing class was built on slavery, right? - if you do not understand a simple sentence like this, then what is the point of debating anything with you? Accusing me of denying slavery? Do you have mercury poisoning?!


You may have thought your comment was witty, but unfortunately, no dice there. That's a serious issue and corporations are still benefiting from slave labor - that was what their current success was built on.Yeah they all do! The capitalist economy was built on slavery in the US and if it was 1850, you could clearly say that the US is CURRENTLY a slave-state. The US today however, although built on the wealth of slavery IS NOT A SLAVE ECONOMY! The basis of the economy is wage-labor now so only an obtuse twit would call the current US a "slave state"!

It's the same with US imperialism. The US is now not taking land and then using the land to give to settlers and plantation owners (settler state) now the basis of US imperialism is through controlling resources and markets and projecting military might (the military bases which you correctly point out).

It may be just as shitty to be an Iriaqi under US occupation as a native american being pushed out of your lands - but the forces behind the Iraqi occupation do not have the same motivations or goals as the settler-state forces do.


I disagree that the US does not occupy countries for land. Perhaps not in terms of land speculation and the like, but for geostrategic position, you bet your ass they do. Afghanistan, for example, isn't just about natural gas and pipelines, it's about getting a foothold in Central Asia to act as a check on Russia and China. If Afghanistan were in Antarctica, NATO wouldn't fucking be occupying it.The it's not the fucking LAND they are interested in - a military base is not a plantation or Isreali development! The US is interested in the stratigic position, for imperial rivlary, not the land!


Also, US troops get subsidized by the government for their crimes. Additionally, who needs to buy them off when their psyche has already been conquered? The psychological is just as important as the concrete/material.
Well since most workers aren't occupying factories, I guess we hafta pack it in:rolleyes:. As I have said, mutiny isn't automatic, it is a potential due to the way class plays into all Imperial militaries. Mutiny is a fact of these systems and Imperial armies have always been subject to mutiny. National Liberation, on the other hand does not have the same level of mutiny - US Generals were always so amazed at how the Vietnameese never suffered from systematic morale problems that the US foces were crippled with - this is because working class GIs do not have an interest in these wars whereas they are fighting for people who are fighting for a better life for themselves.



And on a side note, you didn't even bother to read Dunbar-Ortiz's article (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.counterpunch.org/ortiz10122004.html) or Brown's article (http://www.truthout.org/article/john-brown-our-indian-wars-are-not-over-yet), did you?I skimmed them, but I don't see how they relate to this discussion. People have compared the war on terror to the Crusades too, so does that mean that the US military is a feudal army? Just because some general observes that there are some surface similarities between these conflicts does not tell us much about the class character of the conflict; it doesn't tell us much about the structural features and goals of these different conflicts. All wars are similar in what they look like - there was gurella fighting by confederates in the US south - does that mean the confederates were a real national liberation struggle like the Vietnamese? The south claimed they were fighting for local autonomy, whole towns were burned by the invading army - so was the north Imperialist? Obviously not! We know it's not because we look at the social relationships of the conflict, not the battles and the blown-off limbs to determine the character of the conflict! So when we look at the US's modern imperial wars we can clearly see that unlike the wars against the indians, the US military is not fighting to clear land for development and to be given at low rates to settlers and homesteaders!

[The Ungovernable Farce]

Exactly, I agree with the bold. I don't think they give two shits either.

Which is why I don't give a flying fuck about them.
The vast majority of the working class support the troops and don't give two shits about imperialism. Does that mean you're prepared to write all of them off just because they haven't developed perfect class consciousness yet?

[FreeFocus]

While slavery was a characteristic or feature of the early US, and central to its development, the state would have still existed without slavery. It would not without confiscating land. Period. I defined settler state earlier:


Settler states remain settler states, even when the "settlement project," as you put it, is done, because in order to lose that distinction they'd have to dissolve. The term "settler state" refers to the behavior of the state and the nature of the founding of the state. It has to do with how the state came about. Moreover, settler states are inherently imperialist, exerting economic and political control over other nations, which they happen to forcefully incorporate into their borders.

Also, on the slavery thing, good job trying to backtrack. You were trying to be sarcastic when you said "Certainly the wealth and power of the US ruing class was built on slavery, right?" If that wasn't your intention, you poorly worded that paragraph, as it was unclear. Nonetheless, I gave a distinction between what makes being founded with slavery different from being founded on ethnic cleansing.

And yes, your position is ridiculous. Countries may be attacked for different reasons, but the end result is economic and political control over the country. The class character is the same, it's the bourgeoisie and the powerful attacking the poor and the vulnerable. And since you brought up Vietnam, while it was attacked because of some of the resources there that the US wanted to be available in capitalist markets, the main reason was to stop the spread of "communism." Vietnam was a foothold in Asia, if they would have been able to hold on to it, and it would've been a puppet state used to check states like China. If Vietnam were in the middle of nowhere, once again, it wouldn't have been fucking attacked, it's about geostrategic position, i.e. the country itself, you know, the land.

[FreeFocus]

The vast majority of the working class support the troops and don't give two shits about imperialism. Does that mean you're prepared to write all of them off just because they haven't developed perfect class consciousness yet?

The working class in an imperialist state faces significant barriers and sometimes material interests in supporting imperialism. It's not a worthless endeavor to organize the working class, but I first and foremost side with the victims of imperialist assaults, and if the working class is fully behind the murder both politically and materially, then it's clear what side they're on in that case.

Oppressed people shouldn't have to patiently wait for workers in imperialist states to magically wake up.

[ls]

What a shitty post.


The working class in an imperialist state faces significant barriers and sometimes material interests in supporting imperialism. It's not a worthless endeavor to organize the working class, but I first and foremost side with the victims of imperialist assaults

That's just about understandable..


and if the working class is fully behind the murder both politically and materially, then it's clear what side they're on in that case.

Oppressed people shouldn't have to patiently wait for workers in imperialist states to magically wake up.

Nice one. So you're trying to say that workers in the 'imperialist' states are fully behind the wars?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest

All those damn imperialists marching for their brave soldiers. :rolleyes:

[Jimmie Higgins]

it's about geostrategic position, i.e. the country itself, you know, the land.Sucks to your semantic arguments - the real issue is class dynamics. You essentially seem to take a 3rd worldist view of the working class being part of the problem rather than potentially the solution. Workers buy into ruling class ideas just as soldiers do, but because of their status and position in capitalists they also come into conflict with the ruling class and ruling class ideas.

Your definition of settler state is completely useless - every imperialist state is a settler-state by your definition since obviously people live on land and so NAZI occupation is the same as America in Vietnam is the same as The Normans in England is the same as The Holy Roman Empire in Turkey or whatever!

However, Israel now and the US during colonization is not the same as the US in Vietnam or Iraq or the capitalist powers fighting in WWI. In Israel and pre-WWI America the settler states reward their population with some of the spoils of conquest: mostly through cheep or even free land. Homesteaders as well as plantation owners benefited from the slaughter of Indians and the most right-wing zionists are rewarded with land in Israel. To you this is the same as UK soldiers in Afghanistan or US GIs in Vietnam? That's just crazy - GIs have no material or other real benefit from Imperialism which only ends up making the workers own exploiters stronger. Every imperialist war abroad also intensifies the class war at home - look at the military budget verses social spending in the US!

Because there was a movement against racism in the US, black soldiers rallied around slogans like "No Vietnamese ever called me nigger" and "Gook, is military slang for nigger" because the radical racial/class consciousness provided a counterweight to imperialist propaganda. Black people knew they didn't benefit from a powerful America and this understanding spread to non-blacks in the military as well who could identify. This is the weakness of imperial armies (and what makes it different than the IDF or the US Calvery) - the ones who have to fight them do not win when the empire wins.



Oppressed people shouldn't have to patiently wait for workers in imperialist states to magically wake up.Pleeeease stop making straw-man arguments! I have said repeatedly that obviously the most important part of resistance is the resistance of the occupied people! The issue is can working class soldiers from the imperialist country be encouraged to resist from within. I say they can and have due to the class nature of imperialist militaries - if this is true, then saying "fuck the troops" or writing them off is counterproductive, our stance should be fuck the ruling class, fuck imperialism, the troops should fight the real enemy who are the ones using them as bait and killers for capitalism.