They're still going to kick gays out of the U.S. Military

[Klaatu]

Senate GOP Blocks Consideration Of DADT Repeal

First Posted: 09-21-10 11:39 AM | Updated: 09-21-10 04:09 PM

UPDATE - 3:05 p.m.: Senate Republicans, led by John McCain (R-Ariz.), have blocked the Senate from considering the defense authorization bill Tuesday afternoon. By blocking the bill from moving to the Senate floor, Republicans accomplish the objective of stalling the repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and blocking the Senate from considering the DREAM Act, which would give young, undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship if they enlist in the military or enroll in college.

Republicans objected that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was limiting the number of amendments that could be offered. But Reid had pledged to work with Republicans to allow amendments. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) took to the Senate floor following the defeat to condemn the GOP's "procedural ruse."

McCain, highest-ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee, visited the Senate press gallery to celebrate blocking the bill's consideration, calling it a "blatant and cynical attempt to galvanize the Hispanic vote."

Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), a prime target of Democrats, was whipped by Sens. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) and John Thune (R-S.D.) on the Senate floor. Once they finished talking with him, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), spent several minutes in an intense conversation with Brown. "Okay," Brown could be heard saying as the conversation ended and he walked to the Senate well to cast his vote against moving forward to consider the bill.

Democratic Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor joined every Republican -- save Lisa Murkowski, who is in Alaska running a write-in campaign -- in voting to continue the filibuster of the defense bill. Reid, for procedural reasons, was required to switch his vote to a no so that the motion could come back to the floor in the future.

The next opportunity to vote on the defense bill will come after the election, during the lame-duck session of Congress.

Sen. Dan Inouye (D-Hawaii), chairman of the Appropriations Committee, took the Senate floor after the vote to describe how he had to fight his way into the military during World War II because of discrimination against Japanese Americans, discrimination that continues against gays and lesbians today, as well as against undocumented immigrants. "Just a little step back in history, if I may say so? On December 7, 1941, something terrible happened in Hawaii," Inouye, who lost an arm in the war, recalled.

"Pearl Harbor was bombed by the Japanese. Three weeks later, the government of the United States declared that all Japanese Americans, citizens born in the United States of Japanese ancestry were to be considered enemy alien. As a result, like those undocumented people, they could not put on the uniform of this land. Well, I was 17 at that time, and naturally I resented this because I loved my country and I wanted to put on a uniform to show where my heart stood, but we were denied, so we petitioned the government and a year later, they said okay, if you wish to volunteer, go ahead. Well, to make a long story short, the regiment I served in, made up of Japanese Americans, had the highest casualties in Europe, but the most decorated in the history of the United States. And I think your beneficiaries will do the same," he said, gesturing to Durbin, who'd been arguing on behalf of the DREAM Act.
* * * * *

Susan Collins made an impassioned plea on behalf of repealing the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in a speech on the Senate floor Tuesday morning. But, said Collins, a Republican from Maine, she would filibuster the defense authorization bill that includes the repeal, dealing the cause a major blow. Collins has been the Democrats' primary target in their effort to persuade a Republican Senator to join them to break a GOP filibuster of the defense-spending bill.

Collins made an eloquent case that the DADT policy is unfair and morally indefensible, that it is a waste of taxpayer resources and that other nations that don't similarly discriminate have seen no adverse consequences. But equally as troubling to Collins as the policy, she said, is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) failure to allow unlimited amendments to the defense bill.

"I find myself on the horns of a dilemma," said Collins. "I was the sole Republican in the committee that voted [to repeal DADT]. I think it's the right thing to do. I think it's only fair."

But, she said, refusing to allow unlimited amendments is an equal affront to decency. "That too is not fair," said Collins of Reid's decision. "I cannot vote to proceed to this bill under a situation that is going to shut down debate.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, took the Senate floor after Collins to say that he agreed that members should have the opportunity to amend it, but if Republicans were to filibuster the motion to proceed to the debate, there could be no amendments.

Reid spokesman Jim Manley said that he was "not sure how many more assurances that we can provide both privately and publicly to [Collins], but we need to get to the bill first of all."

Collins' retreat into an objection to procedure obscures the underlying politics of the unified Republican opposition to repealing DADT. Collins has been under tremendous pressure from her colleagues not to break ranks, while facing pressure from home to vote her conscience. Collins was the lone Republican to support repealing the policy in the Armed Services Committee. Collins, who is choosing her party over her principled opposition to DADT, criticized Democrats for putting politics ahead of policy. "Now is not the time to play politics simply because an election is looming in a few weeks," she said.

"Today's vote isn't about arcane Senate procedures. It's about [the] GOP's pattern of obstructing debate on policies important to the American people," said Manley.

On Monday, Lady Gaga held a rally in Maine to pressure Collins, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), organized by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.

Negotiations are ongoing between the two parties. A vote to break the GOP filibuster is scheduled for early Tuesday afternoon.

UPDATE - 12:05 p.m.: Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, another Republican targeted by Democrats, who is retiring after this term, will also filibuster the motion to proceed to debate, he said in a statement.

Sen. George LeMieux (R-Fla.), a third targeted Republican, was appointed to complete the term of Mel Martinez, who left the Senate for K Street. Democrats held out hope he'd join them, but LeMieux is generally reluctant to be the lone Republican to break ranks. On Tuesday afternoon, he said on the Senate floor that he would filibuster the bill, preventing any amendments from being debated.

LeMieux cited the inability to propose amendments as the reason he was opposing the motion to move forward with debate. "We should have the ability to bring any amendment forward," he said, adding that extraneous amendments should not be allowed.

Voinovich struck a similar note:

I'm disappointed that Majority Leader Reid and Senate Democrats have chosen to turn the Defense authorization bill - crucial legislation for our troops in a time of war - into a messaging bill. Just as I said with my decision to support the small business bill, this is not a time for messaging from either side of the aisle. This is a time for action. If the Democrats are serious about passing this bill in a timely fashion, they wouldn't be attaching amendments that are not relevant to the common defense, in addition to making it impossible for Republicans to offer their own amendments to address concerns they have with the bill as voted out of the Armed Services Committee.

The DREAM Act deals with immigration and shouldn't be on this bill. 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' is a controversial issue that needs to be debated on the Senate floor but I believe it would be logical to wait for the Department of Defense to issue its report on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell.' At this point there is no reason to rush to judgment for political expediency until we hear from our military leaders as to whether they think it is a good idea to change this policy. I will carefully study this determination when it is completed.

If you look at history, we usually debate the Defense authorization bill for two weeks. If the Democrats are serious about getting this bill passed, Leader Reid should sit down with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and work out the amendment process. Unless that is done, I will not support cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill.source
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/21/collins-equates-senate-de_n_733135.html

[cska]

Oh good. DADT is the one reliable way for guys to leave military service without being considered deserters. It is foolish to take it away. :thumbup1:

[anticap]

Oh good. DADT is the one reliable way for guys to leave military service without being considered deserters. It is foolish to take it away. :thumbup1:

How about not enlisting in the first place?

[Klaatu]

How about not enlisting in the first place?

Enlistees are pursuing the good training and fully-paid education which the military offers.

My two nephews are a good example: one is a meteorologist, the other is an air-traffic controller.
They could have not have afforded, nor had the ambition to work so hard, sans their military
opportunity. I am so proud of them, thanks to the U.S. military. :thumbup1:

[cska]

How about not enlisting in the first place?

We all know the kinds of recruiting tactics the military uses to get poor kids signed up. They shouldn't be punished for not being able to make an informed decision.

[anticap]

I understand all that, but if one's stance toward the military is that it's a sort of prison that must be escaped by claiming to be gay, then I'm just wondering why one would enlist in the first place.

[Klaatu]

I understand all that, but if one's stance toward the military is that it's a sort of prison that must be escaped by claiming to be gay, then I'm just wondering why one would enlist in the first place.

My nephews did not think that way at all, but then they were not stationed in war zones. I think that few folks sign up to military service in order to go to war. For those that do, they must have some fighting spirit. But as I've said before, the vast majority sign up to get the great free educational benefits. :)

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Wait, there are people who want to join the military?:confused: What lunatics!

[counterblast]

The desire for a free college education isn't really a legitimate reason to contribute directly to US colonization/genocide/globalization in the Third World.

The fact that your nephews are enlisted, despite having an understanding of American foreign policy, is extremely fucked on a multitude of levels.

How can RevLefters call terrorists who attack institutions of world capital completely "anti-working class" on one hand, but not give a shit (and even praise) when folks enlist in the police force of the largest source of capitalist power and working-class misery in the world?

And I'm not really sure queer people losing the "right" to murder in the name of capitalism is really one I'll lose much sleep over

Just sayin'.

[gorillafuck]

How can RevLefters call terrorists who attack institutions of world capital completely "anti-working class" on one hand, but not give a shit (and even praise) when folks enlist in the police force of the largest source of capitalist power and working-class misery in the world?
Well to be fair to half of that position, the obvious communist or anarchist position on al-qaeda should be that al-qaeda are an anti-working class group who are under the control of one of the most absolute richest Islamists in the world and are in no way anti-capitalist, nor have ever damaged capital in any way. Because that is 100% true and not disputable.

On the other half, you're right. The US military is a terrorist organization. Though to be fair to revleft, I have definitely seen that opinion on here quite a lot before and the comments in this section are from a user who is among the less radical on this site (no offense intended Klaatu).

On another note, I don't care about campaigns to let gays in the military for the same reason I wouldn't care about campaigns to eradicate sexism within the SS.

[FreeFocus]

Well to be fair to half of that position, the obvious communist or anarchist position on al-qaeda should be that al-qaeda are an anti-working class group who are under the control of one of the most absolute richest Islamists in the world and are in no way anti-capitalist, nor have ever damaged capital in any way. Because that is 100% true and not disputable.

It isn't true that al-Qaeda hasn't damaged capital. Don't you remember how big of a hit the markets took after 9/11?

[#FF0000]

It isn't true that al-Qaeda hasn't damaged capital. Don't you remember how big of a hit the markets took after 9/11?

A hiccup.

[M-26-7]

It isn't true that al-Qaeda hasn't damaged capital. Don't you remember how big of a hit the markets took after 9/11?

Capital is a social relationship, and it sure wasn't hurt by 9/11.

Actually, it was probably strengthened somewhat, as a side effect of increased American nationalism.

[F9]

I am so proud of them, thanks to the U.S. military. :thumbup1:

I am not, and im pretty sure most people here arent either.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I am not, and im pretty sure most people here arent either.
I'm proud of you Fuserg9. :thumbup1:

[Il Medico]

The ban is obvious discrimination. That said, it is discrimination I would be fine with continuing. Fuck the military.

[Invincible Summer]

While I also generally subscribe to the "Fuck the military" discourse, shouldn't leftists still strive for non-hetero-normative individuals to participate in all facets of society, even if there is a possibility of reactionary choices?

I mean, if there was a law stating that people of colour were not allowed to get jobs, would you say "Good! They can't be wage slaves!"

[communard71]

I can speak from experience; most young people who join the military are not as fully aware of the disgusting strategic goals of the United States to enforce world order for the sake of expansionist capitalist and neo-imperialist policies (although I’m rather certain that the officer class is a well educated, well paid cohort of future capitalist leaders). So, as leftists, we should understand that most of the young people in the service are like kids who got hooked on cigarettes, they need our help and shouldn’t be abandoned so easily. Those people are predominantly if not entirely us, kids of workers who are as ensnared in the propaganda monstrosity which has, let’s be fair, fooled the rest of the western world for several centuries. In the end, the military has been instrumental in both successful revolutions and failed ones depending on the relationship the vast majority of its members had at the time with the proletariat.

[727Goon]

Enlisted military personnel are working class. We as leftists should oppose policies that oppress them because of their orientation and force them into secrecy.

[bcbm]

While I also generally subscribe to the "Fuck the military" discourse, shouldn't leftists still strive for non-hetero-normative individuals to participate in all facets of society, even if there is a possibility of reactionary choices?

I mean, if there was a law stating that people of colour were not allowed to get jobs, would you say "Good! They can't be wage slaves!"

should leftist strive to abolish capital or be the avant-garde expanding its domination?



(trick question)

[Klaatu]

The desire for a free college education isn't really a legitimate reason to contribute directly to US colonization/genocide/globalization in the Third World.

The fact that your nephews are enlisted, despite having an understanding of American foreign policy, is extremely fucked on a multitude of levels.

How can RevLefters call terrorists who attack institutions of world capital completely "anti-working class" on one hand, but not give a shit (and even praise) when folks enlist in the police force of the largest source of capitalist power and working-class misery in the world?

And I'm not really sure queer people losing the "right" to murder in the name of capitalism is really one I'll lose much sleep over

Just sayin'.

Dude, two points:

(A) My nephews were stationed in Korea, in a defensive position.

(B) The military is not to blame for the stupid asinine wars that politicians get us into. They just do the job they are commanded to do, kind of like when you drive a car: the steering wheel takes the car where you steer it. If you get in an accident, you don't blame the steering wheel.

Please do not blame the military. It is not their fault that some (most) USA politicians are imbeciles.

[cska]

Dude, two points:

(A) My nephews were stationed in Korea, in a defensive position.

(B) The military is not to blame for the stupid asinine wars that politicians get us into. They just do the job they are commanded to do, kind of like when you drive a car: the steering wheel takes the car where you steer it. If you get in an accident, you don't blame the steering wheel.

Please do not blame the military. It is not their fault that some (most) USA politicians are imbeciles.

:blink: There was no such thing as a defensive position in Korea. It was all occupation.

The liberals could easily say the military is not to blame. But that would ignore the deep entrenched connections between the military generals and the politicians. You cannot possibly defend the military here.

[anticap]

The military is not to blame for the stupid asinine wars that politicians get us into. They just do the job they are commanded to do....

Please do not blame the military. It is not their fault that some (most) USA politicians are imbeciles.

I hate to be mean, but you're delusional. Capitalists run the US. Politicians are their administrative wing, and the military is their enforcement wing. Neither wing is autonomous, but the military are not a bunch of hapless victims.

[Klaatu]

Military nonwithstanding, I am against discrimination, no matter where, what, who, how, why, or other reason. So even for those who are of the opinion that the military are wrong in some way or other, pleases consider that discrimination must be rooted out and met with opposition and disdain wherever it exists. We will never get a world of improved equality, if we ignore the wrongs and injustices of the world.

Someone here mentioned that the military consists entirely of poor and working class individuals, trying to better themselves. This is true. It is better to direct one's anger at corrupt warmongering US politicians, rather than at their slaves (the military)

[Klaatu]

:blink: There was no such thing as a defensive position in Korea. It was all occupation.

I don't know. What might happen if the US pulled out? Might North Korea be inclined to attack South Korea?



The liberals could easily say the military is not to blame. But that would ignore the deep entrenched connections between the military generals and the politicians. You cannot possibly defend the military here.
Please read my prior post.

[anticap]

It is better to direct one's anger at corrupt warmongering US politicians, rather than at their slaves (the military)

You really need to re-evaluate your analysis. The politicians are not the puppet-masters. They are puppets of capital, just like the military.

Your analysis is remarkably similar to Misesian class analysis.

[Klaatu]

I hate to be mean, but you're delusional. Capitalists run the US. Politicians are their administrative wing, and the military is their enforcement wing. Neither wing is autonomous, but the military are not a bunch of hapless victims.
I wish that the military could, in the US, decide for itself that it thought certain wars were wrong and refuse to participate. But then I don't know what goes on in the minds of generals, either. Some did oppose the wars Bush started.

[Klaatu]

You really need to re-evaluate your analysis. The politicians are not the puppet-masters. They are puppets of capital, just like the military.

Your analysis is remarkably similar to Misesian class analysis.

I digress, you are right: it is really the capitalist that puppets the politician. Sometimes I forget who really runs the country. ;)

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Every time I step out the door, turn on the radio or TV, or read a newspaper, or surf the internet, I know who runs the country. It sure as hell isn't me or anyone I know.

[counterblast]

While I also generally subscribe to the "Fuck the military" discourse, shouldn't leftists still strive for non-hetero-normative individuals to participate in all facets of society, even if there is a possibility of reactionary choices?

I mean, if there was a law stating that people of colour were not allowed to get jobs, would you say "Good! They can't be wage slaves!"


The right to work and feed yourself/your family and the "right" to kill in the name of capitalism aren't really comparable.

A better comparison would be the right to vote for women and people of color. Which, like the military, I would say has given oppressed people nothing.

[counterblast]

Dude, two points:

(A) My nephews were stationed in Korea, in a defensive position.

(B) The military is not to blame for the stupid asinine wars that politicians get us into. They just do the job they are commanded to do, kind of like when you drive a car: the steering wheel takes the car where you steer it. If you get in an accident, you don't blame the steering wheel.

Please do not blame the military. It is not their fault that some (most) USA politicians are imbeciles.

A) Anything done in the name of the U.S. military is inherently offensive.

B) Of course they are. They complicitly carry out the will of politicians and capitalists. Cops don't make laws, but they enforce them.

[counterblast]

Enlisted military personnel are working class. We as leftists should oppose policies that oppress them because of their orientation and force them into secrecy.


Cops are not working class.

[F9]

Dude, two points:

(A) My nephews were stationed in Korea, in a defensive position.

(B) The military is not to blame for the stupid asinine wars that politicians get us into. They just do the job they are commanded to do, kind of like when you drive a car: the steering wheel takes the car where you steer it. If you get in an accident, you don't blame the steering wheel.

Please do not blame the military. It is not their fault that some (most) USA politicians are imbeciles.

Duuuude

http://avatar.identi.ca/1765-96-20090311100848.jpeg
The military is not to blame:blink::confused::bored::lol: To a volunteer military they have no blame?Just the politicians have blame?:blink::confused::rolleyes::bored::laugh: I dont deny politicians role on this shit, but ffs no one told that they are forced to get their guns and start shooting innocent people!It was their fucking choice.
How the hell can you NOT blame the military?Can you even understand what you are talking about, cause im quite sure you dont!Thats a new joke, army has no fault on wars WTF?
And what stupid comparison was that with the steer wheel?It dont even makes sense...I have yet to see a steering wheel driving on his own...

[Klaatu]

I don't buy into all that "keep us safe" bullshit either. And sure, there are warmongers in the military.
Every military has these imperialistic types. And I too, think they are crazy. But to say that "everyone
who joins the military is a fool" or something like that is just a cheap shot. The military provides
opportunity for thousands of poor inner city youths who:

(A) could never afford college or trade school, and the result is a betterment of their lives
(as opposed to the possibility of winding up in jail)

(B) what is the alternative, a draft? A country must have a national defense. Would you "antis" do away
with an all-volunteer military, and re-instate the draft? Because that is what would need to happen if
no one volunteered, wouldn't it?

[anticap]

A country must have a national defense.

The US military presently exists to defend capital, and to capture resources.

[cska]

I don't know. What might happen if the US pulled out? Might North Korea be inclined to attack South Korea?

No.

[Klaatu]

The US military presently exists to defend capital, and to capture resources.

Unfortunately, true.
__________________________________________________ ____________
Originally Posted by Klaatu:
I don't know. What might happen if the US pulled out? Might North Korea be inclined to attack South Korea?


No.

Then let's get out of there.
__________________________________________________ _______________
The point of this thread is not the foreign objectives of US military; that is the subject of another discussion.

The point is that there is discrimination in the military. And as I've said: discrimination must not
be tolerated, no matter where it is. Someone commented that they "didn't care about discrimination
in the military, because they were against military imperialism" or something to that effect.
That is plain stupid. Because no matter where discrimination exists, it must be rooted out. That was the point
of why I had started this thread in the first place.

[counterblast]

The point is that there is discrimination in the military. And as I've said: discrimination must not
be tolerated, no matter where it is. Someone commented that they "didn't care about discrimination
in the military, because they were against military imperialism" or something to that effect.
That is plain stupid. Because no matter where discrimination exists, it must be rooted out. That was the point
of why I had started this thread in the first place.

Your logic is lacking!

First, the U.S. military cannot be "reformed" to be inclusive, because the existence of U.S. military is predicated on upholding imperialism.

Second, the "right" to murder in the name of capitalism is not really a leftist position in any capacity.




The military provides
opportunity for thousands of poor inner city youths who:

(A) could never afford college or trade school, and the result is a betterment of their lives
(as opposed to the possibility of winding up in jail)But... "the result" comes at the expense of other "poor" "inner city" people in other countries. Nationalism -- say whatttt?

And how about the tens of millions funneled into repealing DADT, be funneled instead into something that is ACTUALLY productive, such as giving poor youth college grants or campaigning to alternatives to prisons?

You want equality? Lets work to disband the military, (and ultimately capitalism altogether) not strengthen it.

As for 'B', is a leftist on RevLeft REALLY asking "What's the alternative?"

Read some Marx or Bakunin.

[Klaatu]

Your logic is lacking!

First, the U.S. military cannot be "reformed" to be inclusive, because the existence of U.S. military is predicated on upholding imperialism.

That has nothing to do with discrimination.



Second, the "right" to murder in the name of capitalism is not really a leftist position in any capacity.

I never said it was.

I don't really wish to debate the merits of whether the military should exist or not - it's here and I can't stop it.
I don't disagree with points you and others have made about imperialism, etc. And wouldn't it be a perfect
world if no country needed armies. But it's not a perfect world. Even Communist countries have armies.
Even non-imperialist countries have armies. True, the US military is run by insane, and/or money-grabbing
capitalists/politicians. And a lot of the generals are probably insane warmongers too. And that needs to
change. I think that rooting out discrimination there is a good place to start.

And on further thought, the military ought to be fully accountable to the people (which it is absolutely not so)
Then perhaps there might be stronger checks on war and military adventurism.


And how about the tens of millions funneled into repealing DADT, be funneled instead into something that is ACTUALLY productive, such as giving poor youth college grants or campaigning to alternatives to prisons?

Of course we should be doing these things. I never said that military service is the panacea of all youth troubles.

All in all, I wish I had not brought up the topic, let alone that my nephews had benefited form a good education.
This is getting in too deep into a tangential which I had not intended to get into. This is about discrimination
against homosexuals. And I think that is very, very wrong.

[cska]

Originally Posted by Klaatu:
I don't know. What might happen if the US pulled out? Might North Korea be inclined to attack South Korea?


No.

Then let's get out of there.


Good luck getting our government to do that. Until you get our troops outta there, and every other place under American occupation, people who work for the military should be criticized.

[Revolution starts with U]

I wish that the military could, in the US, decide for itself that it thought certain wars were wrong and refuse to participate. But then I don't know what goes on in the minds of generals, either. Some did oppose the wars Bush started.
They can. No soldier or officer is required to fulfill an unlawful order, no matter who gives it.
http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders.htm

[Fulanito de Tal]

The thing with the GLBT ban in the military is that the state is promoting GLBT discrimination. It conveys that the GLBT community is not capable of fighting. It pushes hoeteronormativity and homophobia. Also, it defines homosexuality.

I think that when people say that it's a good way to leave the military, they don't understand what it is like to be GLBT. How would you feel if the military kicked out someone based on religion? Would that change your opinion? If I joined the military and they ordered me to Iraq, I could say, "I'm Jewish!" and they would kick me out. State sponsored discrimination is garbage.

[Klaatu]

The thing with the GLBT ban in the military is that the state is promoting GLBT discrimination. It conveys that the GLBT community is not capable of fighting. It pushes hoeteronormativity and homophobia. Also, it defines homosexuality.

I think that when people say that it's a good way to leave the military, they don't understand what it is like to be GLBT. How would you feel if the military kicked out someone based on religion? Would that change your opinion? If I joined the military and they ordered me to Iraq, I could say, "I'm Jewish!" and they would kick me out. State sponsored discrimination is garbage.

That was my intent, upon posting the article, to start a discussion on discrimination against gays. Thank You.

[cska]

The thing with the GLBT ban in the military is that the state is promoting GLBT discrimination. It conveys that the GLBT community is not capable of fighting. It pushes hoeteronormativity and homophobia. Also, it defines homosexuality.

This is the American military. Homophobia is the last of your concerns when you are talking about a mass murdering organization.


I think that when people say that it's a good way to leave the military, they don't understand what it is like to be GLBT. How would you feel if the military kicked out someone based on religion? Would that change your opinion? If I joined the military and they ordered me to Iraq, I could say, "I'm Jewish!" and they would kick me out. State sponsored discrimination is garbage.

If the military kicked someone out based on religion, it might be harder to convince them that you are actually of that religion. But aside from that, it would be fine. The nice thing about claiming to be gay is they can't really demand that you prove it. :lol:

[Klaatu]

If the military kicked someone out based on religion, it might be harder to convince them that you are actually of that religion. But aside from that, it would be fine. The nice thing about claiming to be gay is they can't really demand that you prove it. :lol:

That's actually a good point: The bastard "brass" should have to prove that the soldier is actually gay. I suggest that all of the generals give that soldier a blow job to find out... :rolleyes: :laugh:

[727Goon]

Cops are not working class.

Most cops actually had a real choice instead of having no other options. Supporting reactionary policies in the military is fucking stupid, do you support segregated units and shit too? And how is your average soldier any more responsible for imperialist policies and atrocities he didnt commit than a Coca Cola worker is for violence against union leaders? I see no concrete difference between working for a company that acts violently and participates in imperialism and working for the military, and you gotta put food on the table at the end of the day.

[Invincible Summer]

The right to work and feed yourself/your family and the "right" to kill in the name of capitalism aren't really comparable.
Yeah I was being hyperbolic for effect.


A better comparison would be the right to vote for women and people of color. Which, like the military, I would say has given oppressed people nothing.

While this is true, you are saying that you would not support measures that would give whatever semblance of "rights" to these groups?

[EvilRedGuy]

This is disgusting.

[Queercommie Girl]

While this is true, you are saying that you would not support measures that would give whatever semblance of "rights" to these groups?


Don't count on ultra-leftist anarchists to understand the virtues of transitional strategies, either in LGBT issues or in other things.

[counterblast]

Most cops actually had a real choice instead of having no other options.

Most soldiers did too. The majority of folks in the army do not come from alternatives to prison sentencing or even poor urban neighborhoods. Most people in the army are from rural areas, most of whom are there voluntarily, presumably for patriotic reasons.

And I'm not sure which cops you're talking about, at least here in Detroit, a majority of the cops are from poor neighborhoods. They joined the police force in order to "pull themselves up".



Supporting reactionary policies in the military is fucking stupid, do you support segregated units and shit too?

Nope, because a segregated unit doesn't weaken the military force in any way.

I would, however, support a bill banning people of color or women or anyone else from the military. Oh, I guess that makes me a virulent sexist or racist!

I suppose after DADT is repealed, the next logical step should be to campaign for gay inclusion into Stormfront?!

If straight white people can have the right to post about their love of white supremacy, gays should, too! Right?!?!



And how is your average soldier any more responsible for imperialist policies and atrocities he didnt commit than a Coca Cola worker is for violence against union leaders? I see no concrete difference between working for a company that acts violently and participates in imperialism and working for the military, and you gotta put food on the table at the end of the day.

Well I guess if Coca Cola workers start arming themselves with guns and shooting the union leaders at the request of Coca Cola management, I'll have to respond! Until then, the differences between police forces and workers seem pretty self-evident.

The real question is; if Coca Cola started offering workers a college education if they killed a Pepsi worker, as the military does, would you consider the former workers justified in murdering other workers for a college degree?

[counterblast]

While this is true, you are saying that you would not support measures that would give whatever semblance of "rights" to these groups?


Depends how you define "right";

The right to food? Of course.
The right to not be beaten up in the street? Of course.
The right to education? Of course.
The right to work and feed your family? Of course.
The right to adopt? Of course.
The right to be with your partner(s)? Of course.


The right to occupy third world countries? Nope.
The right to kill workers for a college degree? Nope.
The right to secure the interests of capital? Nope.
The right to be included in an inherently fucked up, unreformable institution? Nope.

None of the latter are things I consider "rights".

[Fulanito de Tal]

Most soldiers did too. The majority of folks in the army do not come from alternatives to prison sentencing or even poor urban neighborhoods. Most people in the army are from rural areas, most of whom are there voluntarily, presumably for patriotic reasons.

Where did you get this information? It seems wrong. I was in the Marine Corps and many of the people in my platoon were from urban areas, including NYC, Miami, LA, New Orleans, Fort Lauderdale, Buffalo, San Juan PR, Knoxville, Madison, Portland, San Antonio (these are the ones I can remember from 2004). The amount of people "from the sticks" was relatively small and they were known for being from there. I remember in one occasion at the rifle range, the issue of where people were from came up. A guy from rural Pennsylvania was dubbed "Pensyl-tuckian" (Pennsylvania and Kentucky put together). What I'm trying to show is that he was a rarer case than people from urban areas. There was also another guy from Greenville, IN. He was made fun of somewhat, too, but he was bright, so not too much fun.


Depends how you define "right";
The right to occupy third world countries? Nope.
The right to kill workers for a college degree? Nope.
The right to secure the interests of capital? Nope.
The right to be included in an inherently fucked up, unreformable institution? Nope.

None of the latter are things I consider "rights".

To say this, I think the person joining the military would have to have consciousness of world affairs. Otherwise, their choice is between leaving the same shit they do everyday or sticking around.

[727Goon]

Most soldiers did too. The majority of folks in the army do not come from alternatives to prison sentencing or even poor urban neighborhoods. Most people in the army are from rural areas, most of whom are there voluntarily, presumably for patriotic reasons.

And I'm not sure which cops you're talking about, at least here in Detroit, a majority of the cops are from poor neighborhoods. They joined the police force in order to "pull themselves up".

Where did you get that information? The only people I know in the military are from my poor urban neighborhood, but I imagine if your from a poor rural area and you have no other options the military does seem pretty appealing. Cops make good money and generally come from a pretty comfortable white middle class background from what I've seen. A fair amount of niggas off the block have joined the military, but I dont know nobody in my neighborhood who became a cop.



Nope, because a segregated unit doesn't weaken the military force in any way.

I would, however, support a bill banning people of color or women or anyone else from the military. Oh, I guess that makes me a virulent sexist or racist!

I suppose after DADT is repealed, the next logical step should be to campaign for gay inclusion into Stormfront?!

If straight white people can have the right to post about their love of white supremacy, gays should, too! Right?!?!

What it comes down to is oppressive policies against the enlisted soldiers. It's not about anyones "right" to be in the military, it's about policies making enlisted military people's conditions even more terrible.



Well I guess if Coca Cola workers start arming themselves with guns and shooting the union leaders at the request of Coca Cola management, I'll have to respond! Until then, the differences between police forces and workers seem pretty self-evident.

The real question is; if Coca Cola started offering workers a college education if they killed a Pepsi worker, as the military does, would you consider the former workers justified in murdering other workers for a college degree?

Well the vast majority of the members of the military are non combatants so most people in the military aren't shooting anybody. No ones saying anything the military does is justified, but sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do to support yourself in capitalism. Comparing all soldiers to cops is dumb though, because most soldiers arent in the infantry doing cop type shit, and even for infantry soldiers doing police work isnt the majority of what they're doing. It's also a shitty comparison because for most people being a cop is a career, while being in the military is just something people do for a few years. Theres a huge difference between making your career oppressing people on a day to day basis and working for a few years for an imperialist organization.

[Invincible Summer]

Depends how you define "right";

The right to food? Of course.
The right to not be beaten up in the street? Of course.
The right to education? Of course.
The right to work and feed your family? Of course.
The right to adopt? Of course.
The right to be with your partner(s)? Of course.


The right to occupy third world countries? Nope.
The right to kill workers for a college degree? Nope.
The right to secure the interests of capital? Nope.
The right to be included in an inherently fucked up, unreformable institution? Nope.

None of the latter are things I consider "rights".

Yes that is why I used "rights" in quotations... I wasn't sure how else to describe it.

What I'm trying to get at is that I think that even though we find institutions such as the military abhorrent, it isn't really any more conducive to class consciousness or radicalism to have certain groups of people barred from said institutions. If anything, it'll just focus their energies on "fighting for their right" to get ____.

While it seems opportunistic, I would let people choose whether or not they want to join the military. Perhaps they'll be amongst the many soldiers who become disillusioned with their country, with the rabid nationalism.

I wouldn't support some external body (like Revleft :lol:) making ideological choices for the LGBT community (or any social group), esp if they aren't revolutionary. It may just appear like an extension of suppression.

I don't think that - no matter how good-intentioned - it is a good practice for revolutionaries to tell others what they want. I think they need to figure it out for themselves first.

I didn't really like Inception, but this quote is very much how I feel re: propagandizing... "“An idea... From the tiniest seed, it spreads like a virus."

[Reznov]

The desire for a free college education isn't really a legitimate reason to contribute directly to US colonization/genocide/globalization in the Third World.

The fact that your nephews are enlisted, despite having an understanding of American foreign policy, is extremely fucked on a multitude of levels.

How can RevLefters call terrorists who attack institutions of world capital completely "anti-working class" on one hand, but not give a shit (and even praise) when folks enlist in the police force of the largest source of capitalist power and working-class misery in the world?

And I'm not really sure queer people losing the "right" to murder in the name of capitalism is really one I'll lose much sleep over

Just sayin'.

You can probably always find something revolutionary and counter-revolutionary to everything in life.

But, I am planning on joining the military as well. Its just impossible to afford school without the benefits.

Dont blame the average soliders for doing what they have to do to try to get a good life for themsleves.

[counterblast]

Where did you get this information? It seems wrong. I was in the Marine Corps and many of the people in my platoon were from urban areas, including NYC, Miami, LA, New Orleans, Fort Lauderdale, Buffalo, San Juan PR, Knoxville, Madison, Portland, San Antonio (these are the ones I can remember from 2004). The amount of people "from the sticks" was relatively small and they were known for being from there. I remember in one occasion at the rifle range, the issue of where people were from came up. A guy from rural Pennsylvania was dubbed "Pensyl-tuckian" (Pennsylvania and Kentucky put together). What I'm trying to show is that he was a rarer case than people from urban areas. There was also another guy from Greenville, IN. He was made fun of somewhat, too, but he was bright, so not too much fun.


Where did you get that information? The only people I know in the military are from my poor urban neighborhood, but I imagine if your from a poor rural area and you have no other options the military does seem pretty appealing. Cops make good money and generally come from a pretty comfortable white middle class background from what I've seen. A fair amount of niggas off the block have joined the military, but I dont know nobody in my neighborhood who became a cop.

The Pentagons own figures.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/03/AR2005110302528.html

[counterblast]

Comparing all soldiers to cops is dumb though, because most soldiers arent in the infantry doing cop type shit,

I don't distinguish between a patrol cop and a dispatcher, nor do I distinguish between an infantry soldier and a tactical one. They are all a part of the same apparatus.

The difference between workers and police/soldiers, is that the former fill a role that has radical potential, that in an ideal world would still exist, only under self-"management". The latter are both things that cannot be radicalized, and the creation of an ideal world hinges on their utter destruction.

[counterblast]

You can probably always find something revolutionary and counter-revolutionary to everything in life.

But, I am planning on joining the military as well. Its just impossible to afford school without the benefits.

Dont blame the average soliders for doing what they have to do to try to get a good life for themsleves.

I blame soldiers the same way I blame drug pushers in my community.

They are oppressed people who profit off the deliberate exploitation of other oppressed people -- their "good life" comes by destroying the lives of other people in similar situations.

There is nothing remotely acceptable about that.

[counterblast]

I don't think that - no matter how good-intentioned - it is a good practice for revolutionaries to tell others what they want. I think they need to figure it out for themselves first.


I think this is a total position of privilege. While those in the military have the luxury of "figuring out what they want", those people who the military tortures, kills, colonizes, and rapes, have no such luxury, and their lives hinge upon the whims of soldiers.

And calling the U.S. military out for being a racist, imperialist, vehemently pro-capitalist (not to mention hyper-masculine and anti-gay) club is not telling others "what they want".

Its telling them that if thats what they want, their desires are as worthless and fucked up to me as the man who wants to be CEO of a Fortune 500 company.

[gorillafuck]

The latter are both things that cannot be radicalized, and the creation of an ideal world hinges on their utter destruction.
Actually, militaries have had segments of them radicalized. In Vietnam there were troops who killed their commanders and refused to take orders from the US anymore, and in the Russian Revolution the same thing happened. Difference is that those were both conscript armies whereas the current US military is not. But not all militaries are the US military, keep in mind.

[Plagueround]

You can probably always find something revolutionary and counter-revolutionary to everything in life.

But, I am planning on joining the military as well. Its just impossible to afford school without the benefits.

Dont blame the average soliders for doing what they have to do to try to get a good life for themsleves.

At what point do we stop excusing behavior on the basis that a person was just trying to have a good life? Sometimes I feel guilty just for working for a government run health care system. I'm not sure how a soldier would deal with the cognitive dissonance. Or perhaps cognitive dissonance is what it takes to deal with the hand we've dealt.

[Sir Comradical]

I don't feel sorry for people who are discriminated against when trying to join the military. If anything it shows homosexuals that it's against their interests to try and fight for a country that treats them so horribly.

[727Goon]

I don't distinguish between a patrol cop and a dispatcher, nor do I distinguish between an infantry soldier and a tactical one. They are all a part of the same apparatus.

The difference between workers and police/soldiers, is that the former fill a role that has radical potential, that in an ideal world would still exist, only under self-"management". The latter are both things that cannot be radicalized, and the creation of an ideal world hinges on their utter destruction.


Do you distinguish between an EMT and a patrol cop? Do you distinguish between a mechanic who works on cop cars and a patrol cop? While obviously the military wouldnt exsist in an ideal world, there would probably be some sort of workers militia to defend communities against outside aggressors and counter revolution. And if you dont think enlisted military personel can be radicalized, how do you explain GI resistance during the Vietnam War?

[Ocean Seal]

Many of you are forgetting the material conditions around people. Yes you can have your fun yelling imperial troops imperial troops. But how many of you know that an army private has an annual salary of around 14,000 USD a year. It doesn't honestly seem to me that they are members of the bourgeoisie or that they are reaping the same profits as the bourgeoisie. Also I would like to recommend that you remember that not everyone has grown up in the same conditions as you nor that it is easy to avoid the lure of the military. The military offers *free* education, to students who may not have been at the top of their class, may not have had the means to pay for any university, and could have been entering a very poor job market. Then you add the propaganda that the military sends out everywhere and you begin to understand why someone would want to join the military. Some private universities cost over $50,000 a year, and how do you expect people to pay for them, when they come from a family that earns less than $40,000 a year (most of America). Remember you may not like the actions of the US military, but you can't hold this against the individuals who join. And for those of you who preach personal responsibility, you make the same argument that the capitalist gives to the starving man. I guarantee that they don't go to war thinking let's oppress some people, but rather I need to make something of my life and no one else will give me an opportunity. An opportunity to get an education and to attempt to get out of poverty.
I can understand why you might not like the troops, but instead redirect your hatred towards the government and the capitalist system. They are the one's that push people into this. They are the one's who take away opportunities from people and they are the one's who profit. All people should be entitled to the benefits of the military regardless of orientation. What we should focus on is socializing education so that people can make the choice without a sword behind their back.

[counterblast]

Do you distinguish between an EMT and a patrol cop? Do you distinguish between a mechanic who works on cop cars and a patrol cop? While obviously the military wouldnt exsist in an ideal world, there would probably be some sort of workers militia to defend communities against outside aggressors and counter revolution. And if you dont think enlisted military personel can be radicalized, how do you explain GI resistance during the Vietnam War?

Of course. The role of an EMT/mechanic and a cop are fundamentally different.

Well ignoring that the Vietnam military was a DRAFTED military, I think that depends on what the word "resistance" means. Did they spout radical rhetoric, while still participating in the war? Or were they like the aforementioned individual who turned against their officers? In the latter case, those radical people weren't "in the military", they left the military by refusing to act under its heirarchy and ideological requirements.

It seems you're saying people can have a change of heart, which I am not disputing. I mean, a capitalist, too, could decide what they're doing is fucked, turn on other capitalists, and join the working class, but that doesn't mean that being a capitalist is less fucked or that capitalists have some sort of inherent "revolutionary potential". Once again, like in the aforementioned example, in order to be revolutionary, a capitalist must stop being a capitalist.

Anyways, all this talk of soldiers as if they're a group prone to be revolutionary is so covered in troop-loving liberalism, I feel like I'm reading a Hillary Clinton speech.

[counterblast]

Many of you are forgetting the material conditions around people. Yes you can have your fun yelling imperial troops imperial troops. But how many of you know that an army private has an annual salary of around 14,000 USD a year. It doesn't honestly seem to me that they are members of the bourgeoisie or that they are reaping the same profits as the bourgeoisie. Also I would like to recommend that you remember that not everyone has grown up in the same conditions as you nor that it is easy to avoid the lure of the military. The military offers *free* education, to students who may not have been at the top of their class, may not have had the means to pay for any university, and could have been entering a very poor job market. Then you add the propaganda that the military sends out everywhere and you begin to understand why someone would want to join the military. Some private universities cost over $50,000 a year, and how do you expect people to pay for them, when they come from a family that earns less than $40,000 a year (most of America). Remember you may not like the actions of the US military, but you can't hold this against the individuals who join. And for those of you who preach personal responsibility, you make the same argument that the capitalist gives to the starving man. I guarantee that they don't go to war thinking let's oppress some people, but rather I need to make something of my life and no one else will give me an opportunity. An opportunity to get an education and to attempt to get out of poverty.
I can understand why you might not like the troops, but instead redirect your hatred towards the government and the capitalist system. Many of you are forgetting the material conditions around people. Yes you can have your fun yelling imperial troops imperial troops. But how many of you know that an army private has an annual salary of around 14,000 USD a year. It doesn't honestly seem to me that they are members of the bourgeoisie or that they are reaping the same profits as the bourgeoisie. Also I would like to recommend that you remember that not everyone has grown up in the same conditions as you nor that it is easy to avoid the lure of the military. The military offers *free* education, to students who may not have been at the top of their class, may not have had the means to pay for any university, and could have been entering a very poor job market. Then you add the propaganda that the military sends out everywhere and you begin to understand why someone would want to join the military. Some private universities cost over $50,000 a year, and how do you expect people to pay for them, when they come from a family that earns less than $40,000 a year (most of America). Remember you may not like the actions of the US military, but you can't hold this against the individuals who join. And for those of you who preach personal responsibility, you make the same argument that the capitalist gives to the starving man. I guarantee that they don't go to war thinking let's oppress some people, but rather I need to make something of my life and no one else will give me an opportunity. They are the one's that push people into this. They are the one's who take away opportunities from people and they are the one's who profit. All people should be entitled to the benefits of the military regardless of orientation. What we should focus on is socializing education so that people can make the choice without a sword behind their back.

Again, this is more America-centric shit.

While we should address the less immediate (but still important) needs of the American worker (ie: the right to an education), the needs of the workers in the occupied Third World (ie: the right to simply live) are far more basic and necessary to the survival of the working class globally. If the only way the working class in America can go to college is by killing the working class in Afghanistan, then I say the workers of the good old US of A shouldn't go to college, then.

Anyone who disagrees with such an analysis, I feel pretty confident in making a blanket statement and saying they're a nationalist or racist idiot.

[LC89]

Are gay soldiers fighting for equality or approval?

[Invincible Summer]

I think this is a total position of privilege. While those in the military have the luxury of "figuring out what they want", those people who the military tortures, kills, colonizes, and rapes, have no such luxury, and their lives hinge upon the whims of soldiers.

And calling the U.S. military out for being a racist, imperialist, vehemently pro-capitalist (not to mention hyper-masculine and anti-gay) club is not telling others "what they want".

Its telling them that if thats what they want, their desires are as worthless and fucked up to me as the man who wants to be CEO of a Fortune 500 company.

I wholeheartedly agree with you but I'm playing devil's advocate to an extent in order to flesh out complexities in an issue that I see is being treated as black/white.

But since you've already began the "you're privileged!!" (Yes, I am. I can't help it really... these are the social conditions in which I am born and raised) accusations that border on "prolier than thou" I'm going to stop here.

[counterblast]

that border on "prolier than thou" I'm going to stop here.

This has nothing to do with claiming to be "proler than thou".

I am simply stating that complacency is a position of privilege.

[727Goon]

Of course. The role of an EMT/mechanic and a cop are fundamentally different.

So then the role of an EMT or mechanic for the military is fundamentally different from that of an MP?



Well ignoring that the Vietnam military was a DRAFTED military, I think that depends on what the word "resistance" means. Did they spout radical rhetoric, while still participating in the war? Or were they like the aforementioned individual who turned against their officers? In the latter case, those radical people weren't "in the military", they left the military by refusing to act under its heirarchy and ideological requirements.

It seems you're saying people can have a change of heart, which I am not disputing. I mean, a capitalist, too, could decide what they're doing is fucked, turn on other capitalists, and join the working class, but that doesn't mean that being a capitalist is less fucked or that capitalists have some sort of inherent "revolutionary potential". Once again, like in the aforementioned example, in order to be revolutionary, a capitalist must stop being a capitalist.

Anyways, all this talk of soldiers as if they're a group prone to be revolutionary is so covered in troop-loving liberalism, I feel like I'm reading a Hillary Clinton speech.

Well todays military is pretty much voluntary in name only seeing as a shit ton of people join up because their conditions are so bad they have no other options. And GI resistance was a major factor in ending the Vietnam War, heres an interesting article: http://libcom.org/history/vietnam-gi-resistance. I dont think military members have any more revolutionary potential than other members of the working class, and probably less because of the reactionary indoctrination. Still, dismissing trying to organize military members and veterans as "troop loving liberalism" is absurd why should we as leftists bash working class military personel when the people responsible are really the capitalists?

[counterblast]

Still, dismissing trying to organize military members and veterans as "troop loving liberalism" is absurd why should we as leftists bash working class military personel when the people responsible are really the capitalists?

Because U.S. soldiers cannot be "organized". The people who fill these positions can only be "organized" if they quit the U.S. military, just as cops could possibly be organized only if they quit being cops. The U.S. soldier/cop identity is not one that is compatible with the liberation of the working class or the socially oppressed, because both predicate on being deliberate enforcers of working class oppression, nationalism, and defenders of ruling class power.

[727Goon]

Because U.S. soldiers cannot be "organized". The people who fill these positions can only be "organized" if they quit the U.S. military, just as cops could possibly be organized only if they quit being cops. The U.S. soldier/cop identity is not one that is compatible with the liberation of the working class or the socially oppressed, because both predicate on being deliberate enforcers of working class oppression, nationalism, and defenders of ruling class power.

Well there are already members of the military participating in leftist projects now so uh I guess fuck them huh? Again you seem to have ignored my point that the vast majority of military members dont do police work so your point about soldiers being cops isnt valid. And obviously the US Soldier identity in the sense of the ideology of the military itself isnt compatible with the liberation of the working class or socially oppressed, but the Vietnam-era GI Resistance identity is very compatible to that.

[Klaatu]

While we should address the less immediate (but still important) needs of the American worker (ie: the right to an education),

I agree with you on one thing: People have a right to an education...That should be in the Constitution! :star3:

[counterblast]

Well there are already members of the military participating in leftist projects now so uh I guess fuck them huh?

Yes, fuck them as long as they are willing participants in the military. Participation in "leftist projects" doesn't make the murder of working class people in the Third World justified.

If Nike began donating half its profits to "leftist projects", that wouldn't make me ignore the people they exploit and kill on a daily basis or the fact that the structure under which they voluntarily operate isn't capable of being reformed.




Again you seem to have ignored my point that the vast majority of military members dont do police work so your point about soldiers being cops isnt valid.

I don't believe for a second that most military members don't do ground work or some sort of tactical work which directly contributes to the murder of working class people.

Do you have statistics to prove that most soldiers are cooks, janitors, secretaries or on one of the military's 5 professional sports teams? Because this seems like a really outlandish claim.

[the last donut of the night]

The thing with the GLBT ban in the military is that the state is promoting GLBT discrimination. It conveys that the GLBT community is not capable of fighting. It pushes hoeteronormativity and homophobia. Also, it defines homosexuality.

Gays fighting in the military won't change jack shit about heteronormativity and patriarchy, in the same way that women voting and fighting imperialist wars hasn't changed jack shit about sexism and patriarchy.

[gorillafuck]

Of course. The role of an EMT/mechanic and a cop are fundamentally different.

Well ignoring that the Vietnam military was a DRAFTED military, I think that depends on what the word "resistance" means. Did they spout radical rhetoric, while still participating in the war? Or were they like the aforementioned individual who turned against their officers? In the latter case, those radical people weren't "in the military", they left the military by refusing to act under its heirarchy and ideological requirements.
They didn't spout radical rhetoric while still participating in the war at all to my knowledge. There was quite a lot more more people than one individual who turned against their officers. There was an actual movement in the Vietnam war of troops who would kill their commanding officers and refuse to take orders.

Obviously that involves leaving the military, but it does show that segments of military can act against wars. And yeah, Vietnam was a drafted military and it probably wouldn't happen in the US military, but we have to remember that the majority of militaries in the world are still drafted militaries. There are quite a lot more militaries than just the American one.

None of this should be taken as giving credit to the US military for stopping the war though, some of the military just helped a bit. The Vietnam war was stopped by the Vietcong.

[counterblast]

There are quite a lot more militaries than just the American one.

I'm aware of that, but this article was referring specifically to the U.S. military.

[gorillafuck]

I'm aware of that, but this article was referring specifically to the U.S. military.
Oh, I was under the impression that you were referring to all militaries because when I initially mentioned radicalization in the military I was responding to this...


The difference between workers and police/soldiers, is that the former fill a role that has radical potential, that in an ideal world would still exist, only under self-"management". The latter are both things that cannot be radicalized, and the creation of an ideal world hinges on their utter destruction.Which definitely looks to me like it is referring to soldiers in general.

This is a good topic though, since we oppose all capitalist militaries, whether the US military or the military in India or New Zealand or Guatemala. But which ones have potential for radicalization within them?

[727Goon]

Alot of people in the US military today are pretty much drafted since there arent that many options out there.

[727Goon]

Yes, fuck them as long as they are willing participants in the military. Participation in "leftist projects" doesn't make the murder of working class people in the Third World justified.

If Nike began donating half its profits to "leftist projects", that wouldn't make me ignore the people they exploit and kill on a daily basis or the fact that the structure under which they voluntarily operate isn't capable of being reformed.

No ones looking to reform the military obviously, but we shouldnt even work with working class soldiers? What about soldiers for gangs, the left has organized gang members before like the Young Lords and shit and no one is against that even though its basically the same thing.



I don't believe for a second that most military members don't do ground work or some sort of tactical work which directly contributes to the murder of working class people.

Do you have statistics to prove that most soldiers are cooks, janitors, secretaries or on one of the military's 5 professional sports teams? Because this seems like a really outlandish claim.

I dont know where to find statistics for that right now but it's something like for every one combatant theres like 5 non combatants.

[Incendiarism]

counterblast has no connection to the working class he seems to want to defend...

i'm a communist joining the military next year, what do you think of that? i am no friend of imperialism, but because of my conduct in life and because of problems out of my control i feel that i have no choice. i am 22 and have no skills to speak of. education is not something i can easily jump into, and i'm fucking tired of working shit minimum wage type jobs, getting my hands dirty for paltry restitution. it doesn't mean i'm a monster.

i come from a good family, and as the eldest i feel i have an obligation to take care of them, but having no avenues to better myself financially i feel downcast. of course, personal experiences and problems have no bearing on my choice, it's just something i'm doing on a whim without any heavy consideration on my part. too bad i'm not one for appeals to emotions, because not everything is so black and white.

the fact of the matter is, there is no escaping from capitalism as it is a global phenomenon. what i am escaping from is the grip of perpetual poverty and a dead-end lifestyle.

[counterblast]

No ones looking to reform the military obviously, but we shouldnt even work with working class soldiers? What about soldiers for gangs, the left has organized gang members before like the Young Lords and shit and no one is against that even though its basically the same thing.



No, we shouldn't work with class traitors til' they stop being traitors. You cannot simultaneously be an enemy/murderer/exploiter of the working class and yet conveniently cling to the title "working class".

Are you really comparing street gangs to the army?

On one hand you have renegade militias, many which formed as vehicles of self-determination for working class people, which have become self-destructive to the working class.

On the other, you have an institution that fundamentally relies on and perpetuates state power and capitalism.

In one case, you have self-destruction which is a result of bad decisions and misdirected anger. On the other, you have institutional violence directed at the working class, where the face of capitalism and the state manifest themselves as soldiers.

[gorillafuck]

No, we shouldn't work with class traitors til' they stop being traitors. You cannot simultaneously be an enemy/murderer/exploiter of the working class and yet conveniently cling to the title "working class".
This is where I really disagree. The working class isn't strong right now, at least in the US. Do you seriously think that class politics shouldn't be presented to soldiers since being a soldier is reactionary? That's like saying that if I have a friend who thinks women are stupid, I shouldn't say anything about it since they're a sexist.

[Ocean Seal]

Again, this is more America-centric shit.

While we should address the less immediate (but still important) needs of the American worker (ie: the right to an education), the needs of the workers in the occupied Third World (ie: the right to simply live) are far more basic and necessary to the survival of the working class globally. If the only way the working class in America can go to college is by killing the working class in Afghanistan, then I say the workers of the good old US of A shouldn't go to college, then.

Anyone who disagrees with such an analysis, I feel pretty confident in making a blanket statement and saying they're a nationalist or racist idiot.

Quite frankly your forgetting the same principles that anti-war liberals forget. The fact that material conditions are what inspire you to go to war. Rather than insulting those who disagree with you and insulting the military (which by the way accomplishes nothing), you should target the root cause. And what is the root cause: poverty. Because yes poverty exists in America too. Yelling at the military won't stop those in need from joining it what will stop them is forcing the state to bring down the ridiculous cost of private university and stopping the state from having such a massive military budget while neglecting education and healthcare. Furthermore, CAPITALISM is the enemy. Capitalism is what sends these kids off to war. Start bringing down the corporations and you'll start to see imperialism come to a screeching halt. The people will see the true intent of the corporate types and they'll realize that the corporations have done what Osama has 100 fold. Your viewpoint is far too narrow. You think that its okay to simply say that American workers shouldn't get the right to an education, that is utterly reactionary. We should fight for their education and give them an option that isn't going to war. Get off your high horse and start take a good look at the American working class. The way to make war go away is to liberate them not force them to stay uneducated and unemployed. I understand your argument, but it hurts more than it helps. At the end of the day, if you forget to guarantee the workers an education you are essentially ensuring the reign of capitalism and imperialism.