Love the Soldier but Hate the War

[MKS]

For all the Americans out there; Memorial Day is fast approaching, a day to remeber all the American soldiers who died fighting to expand the Empire.

So I wanted to get your opinions; if we should support soldiers fighting in the American Imperial wars, or not. Can you really love the soldier but hate the war.

Without the soldiers there wouldnt be a war right?

I put this in OI so all the "others" can respond as well.

[Brennus]

Originally posted by MKS+--> (MKS)So I wanted to get your opinions; if we should support soldiers fighting in the American Imperial wars, or not. Can you really love the soldier but hate the war.[/b]

Yes, we should support soldiers while condemning war.


MKS
Without the soldiers there wouldnt be a war right?

Soldiers do not social conditions[war], social conditions create soldiers.

Here is my view of the situation about the war in Iraq:

The best option for communists in all countries is to sympathize with the plight of the common soldier. He fights capitalists' wars and gets paid for it, but what about the workers back home making guns and bombs? Are they murderers too, merely because their livelihood depends upon working for the capitalist? We are all victims of circumstance and should empathise with those who, like most back home, further the aims of Capitalism, but are desperate enough to do so with their lives. Our approach towards soldiers should be that of empathy, not of hate. Here's why:

Most American troops did not join willingly. The majority of the soldiers in Iraq joined the National Guard, which is typically left unused except in the case of emergencies, [and technically, it was declared by our legislature to be our official militia, not a part of the standing army] and Bush managed to avoid having an official draft by declaring a state of emergency and sending all the members of the National Guard into Iraq. So don't start that bullshit about "they volunteered". They volunteered for service in a militia to defend their country in the case of an emergency (which in my opinion hasn't happened since the Canadians burned down our Capitol in the nineteenth century) and the troops currently in Iraq had no intention of fighting on foreign soil. Most of them were drafted in this manner.

Is supporting our troops bourgeois? Supporting our troops, unlike what many conservative twits believe, is NOT sending them to fight wars on foreign soil. What they really mean is "We support our troops [dying for the lies of our government to make a few men rich!]" If one truly supported the troops, one would be in favor of bringing them home. Thousands of them have been killed and maimed, and have suffered as much as their enemies in Iraq (many of whom certain people find no trouble 'supporting', even though many in Iraq are religious bigots and have no class conciousness whatsoever. Truly supporting our troops is recognizing they are victims, not perpetrators of capitalism.

[bed_of_nails]

That reminds me of my history class (the burning from Canada).

I love it. Canada kicked Americas ass big time there.

[workersunity]

i could see how the system literally forces people to become soldiers but all those who signed up for the military, i dont have any respect for in that aspect

[MKS]

Well, thats the thing its an all volunteer army. The circumstances of volunteering are moot.

You would have to be completey ignorant if you didnt know you would be fighting a war of Imperial expansion.

Why should I support soldiers who actively fight for oppression?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

The hard fact is that soldiers will only return when the conflict is over. There are only two possible outcomes: 1) enough death has been dealt to the enemy 2) enough death has been dealt to US troops

There is no middle ground. This conflict ends only when one side has had enough. If you really want the troops to come home you either 1) support them and thier mission or 2) give up. Either one will bring the troops back home. Ask the troops yourself #2 is not an option.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Zingu+May 28 2005, 12:43 AM--> (Zingu @ May 28 2005, 12:43 AM)
[email protected] 27 2005, 11:57 PM
The hard fact is that soldiers will only return when the conflict is over. There are only two possible outcomes: 1) enough death has been dealt to the enemy 2) enough death has been dealt to US troops

There is no middle ground. This conflict ends only when one side has had enough. If you really want the troops to come home you either 1) support them and thier mission or 2) give up. Either one will bring the troops back home. Ask the troops yourself #2 is not an option.
Where is your justice and compassion here? What you seem to be preaching so much?

I can't help pointing this out but....

You pretty much summed up what we think of revolution on parallel guidelines, its the proletariat verse the burgeoise.

Two possible outcomes; 1) Burgeoise surrender and loose all 2) Proletariat surrender and all they have gained is crushed.

Either one will stop the violence, but ask the revolutionaries and the proletariat, and 2 is not a option. [/b]
I am not of strong character to pretend to be a pacificst.

I did not know that forgein national insurgents in Iraq were proletariat or devout religious Muslims communist?

I'll ask a communist protelariat that question when I find one.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 28 2005, 02:14 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 28 2005, 02:14 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 12:43 AM

[email protected] 27 2005, 11:57 PM
The hard fact is that soldiers will only return when the conflict is over. There are only two possible outcomes: 1) enough death has been dealt to the enemy 2) enough death has been dealt to US troops

There is no middle ground. This conflict ends only when one side has had enough. If you really want the troops to come home you either 1) support them and thier mission or 2) give up. Either one will bring the troops back home. Ask the troops yourself #2 is not an option.
Where is your justice and compassion here? What you seem to be preaching so much?

I can't help pointing this out but....

You pretty much summed up what we think of revolution on parallel guidelines, its the proletariat verse the burgeoise.

Two possible outcomes; 1) Burgeoise surrender and loose all 2) Proletariat surrender and all they have gained is crushed.

Either one will stop the violence, but ask the revolutionaries and the proletariat, and 2 is not a option.
I am not of strong character to pretend to be a pacificst.

I did not know that forgein national insurgents in Iraq were proletariat or devout religious Muslims communist?

I'll ask a communist protelariat that question when I find one. [/b]
Why do you take an honest and simple analysis and turn it into an insult-fest?

Personally I think you need to do some growing up.

[NovelGentry]

Well, thats the thing its an all volunteer army.

And Brennus's point is that it's not a volunteer army, at least no more volunteer than the proletariat volunteers to be the workers for capitalists. Do you claim that the proletariat is a volunteer labor force? If we do not "volunteer" we die.

Many (although I won't claim all) soldiers are in similar circumstances, where their only option for life their only perceived option to generate income, is the military. This was very much the case with my friend Yoshi who joined the air force, and thankfully has not been called into active duty.

I will expect soldiers to oppose their bosses when the rest of the proletariat begins to oppose theirs.

[Raisa]

Well yall.....

I support the soldiers but not the war. I meet people who join the military that are my age and they are no where near as political as you half of the time.....

To alot of people in the military, this is how they believe they serve the people.
The army is not full of baby killing crazy men, its full of people who joined it because they care about you and they feel compelled to fight for you....whether it is a misconception or not...that is the conception that gets alot of people to join the army. And we can not condemn them for wanting to serve their country, whether that is what they are really being used for or not.

And their spirit is a good spirit for communism because they put themselves second for the people....it is a shame though that they end up dieing for the president half the time.

Also alot of people are mislead into joining for the benifits that they probably wont even receive all of we cant hate them for that...its sad because alot of people shouldnt even be in there- its not for them, and they are in the military and they will go to war and find out their heart really isnt in it, and it will be so late that they wont even be able to think about that because they are trying to not die.

Condemn the war, support the troops.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I don't support the troops.
A lot of people say that whether or not you condone the war or the actions of the federal government, you should support the American troops. Well, fuck that.
I absolutely condemn America's presence in Iraq. The troops are (1) guilty of joining the US military and (2) pawns of a corrupt plot to dominate yet another sovereign nation for the benefits of the private sector.
I support the resistance against the occupation, and therefore against the troops.

[MKS]

It is a volunteer army.

No one is compelled to join. True some circumsatances might be scewed to make the argument that volunteers dont reall volunteer, however all members of the military make a conscious choice to join.

My brother made that choice, and i dont support him.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by bed_of_nails+May 28 2005, 02:23 AM--> (bed_of_nails @ May 28 2005, 02:23 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 02:14 AM

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 12:43 AM

[email protected] 27 2005, 11:57 PM
The hard fact is that soldiers will only return when the conflict is over. There are only two possible outcomes: 1) enough death has been dealt to the enemy 2) enough death has been dealt to US troops

There is no middle ground. This conflict ends only when one side has had enough. If you really want the troops to come home you either 1) support them and thier mission or 2) give up. Either one will bring the troops back home. Ask the troops yourself #2 is not an option.
Where is your justice and compassion here? What you seem to be preaching so much?

I can't help pointing this out but....

You pretty much summed up what we think of revolution on parallel guidelines, its the proletariat verse the burgeoise.

Two possible outcomes; 1) Burgeoise surrender and loose all 2) Proletariat surrender and all they have gained is crushed.

Either one will stop the violence, but ask the revolutionaries and the proletariat, and 2 is not a option.
I am not of strong character to pretend to be a pacificst.

I did not know that forgein national insurgents in Iraq were proletariat or devout religious Muslims communist?

I'll ask a communist protelariat that question when I find one.
Why do you take an honest and simple analysis and turn it into an insult-fest?

Personally I think you need to do some growing up. [/b]
I'm making tough points here. Just because they don't fit into your comfortable world view, you think I'm evil or insulting. The facts are facts, and I'm doing you a favor to face the facts.

Are the forgein insurgents in Iraq, protelariat?

Are the devout religious Iraqi Muslum insurgents, communist?

Are there any other kind of insurgents I may have missed?

You need some humility after eating crow.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 03:12 AM
Well yall.....

I support the soldiers but not the war. I meet people who join the military that are my age and they are no where near as political as you half of the time.....

To alot of people in the military, this is how they believe they serve the people.
The army is not full of baby killing crazy men, its full of people who joined it because they care about you and they feel compelled to fight for you....whether it is a misconception or not...that is the conception that gets alot of people to join the army. And we can not condemn them for wanting to serve their country, whether that is what they are really being used for or not.

And their spirit is a good spirit for communism because they put themselves second for the people....it is a shame though that they end up dieing for the president half the time.

Also alot of people are mislead into joining for the benifits that they probably wont even receive all of we cant hate them for that...its sad because alot of people shouldnt even be in there- its not for them, and they are in the military and they will go to war and find out their heart really isnt in it, and it will be so late that they wont even be able to think about that because they are trying to not die.

Condemn the war, support the troops.
I hope you realize that the only way the troops are comming home they way THEY WANT to come back home is to WIN the conflict. Which means inflict as much death and suffering on the enemy so the enemy yields. They don't want to come back surrendering to the enemy. Either way will bring them back, only one way is they way the troops want to come back home. Which way do you support them? Do you support them the way they want it or they way they don't want it?

[1936]

Fuck memorial day, America havent done anything worth being honoured. And the American troops in ANY war havent done anything worth honouring.

[Brennus]

Originally posted by MKS
You would have to be completey ignorant if you didnt know you would be fighting a war of Imperial expansion.

Today, yes. I wouldn't have much sympathy for anyone who joined the military in the past 2 years, but most of the dead and wounded are from the 150,000 National Guard troops that were sent to Iraq without a choice in 2003.

[Intifada]

Are the forgein insurgents in Iraq, protelariat?


Maybe.


Are the devout religious Iraqi Muslum insurgents, communist?

Obviously not.


Are there any other kind of insurgents I may have missed?

Yes.

You forgot about the normal Iraqi nationalist who wants his country rid of occupation, most of whom come from a poor, working-class background.

[Jesus Christ!]

I think its absurd to make the claim that the vast majority of people who join the army are forced into it by economic means. I don't support the troops volunentaraly joining the ranks to defend oppression and imperialism. I'll support the troops when it is a draft army.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 02:05 PM
Fuck memorial day, America havent done anything worth being honoured. And the American troops in ANY war havent done anything worth honouring.
I can think of one thing to be honored for? How about your right to say "Fu** Memorial Day? You can thank soldiers for that.

Of course you can thank them for everything that follows from that.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 04:35 AM
I don't support the troops.
A lot of people say that whether or not you condone the war or the actions of the federal government, you should support the American troops. Well, fuck that.
I absolutely condemn America's presence in Iraq. The troops are (1) guilty of joining the US military and (2) pawns of a corrupt plot to dominate yet another sovereign nation for the benefits of the private sector.
I support the resistance against the occupation, and therefore against the troops.
1 and 2 are not crimes in any country or any international treaty or law. You only THINK they are guilty.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 02:50 PM


You forgot about the normal Iraqi nationalist who wants his country rid of occupation, most of whom come from a poor, working-class background.
Ok.

How many of them are fighting? Are you talking about the Saddam loyalist too?

[slim]

I suppose what the message is saying is that the troops need our support because they are fighting for our governments whether the government is right or wrong.

A person will join an army for a variety of reasons; seeing the world is a popular conception, others just want to blow stuff up, others want to fight for nationalist reasons (to please their family or get laid), tradition or to be an officer and make reforms in the future (within the military or in politics in later life).

You cannot blame any of the soldiers based on these motives on starting a war. Blame the ones at the top. Soldiers are the messengers, dont take it out on them. If they refuse to serve they could face a firing squad.

[Intifada]

How many of them are fighting?

I'd say that the vast majority of resistance fighters will, naturally, be Iraqi nationalists from poor places, with high unemployment.


Are you talking about the Saddam loyalist too?

The Saddam loyalists are in the minority I would say.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 04:05 PM
I suppose what the message is saying is that the troops need our support because they are fighting for our governments whether the government is right or wrong.

A person will join an army for a variety of reasons; seeing the world is a popular conception, others just want to blow stuff up, others want to fight for nationalist reasons (to please their family or get laid), tradition or to be an officer and make reforms in the future (within the military or in politics in later life).

You cannot blame any of the soldiers based on these motives on starting a war. Blame the ones at the top. Soldiers are the messengers, dont take it out on them. If they refuse to serve they could face a firing squad.
Yeah that is a difficult line in the sand, to know what is fighting to bring the troops home without not supporting them. Luckly that is a problem for the leftist to balance and not mine. I want the troops home too. I want them to come home after a VICTORY and not a defeat.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Raisa+--> (Raisa)The army is not full of baby killing crazy men...[/b]

I disagree. The reported behavior of U.S. troops in Iraq -- which I must presume is the "tip of the iceberg" -- is a parade of horrors...including but probably not limited to massacre, torture, rape, arbitrary mass imprisonments, etc.

I make that "tip of the iceberg" presumption because U.S. troops have also murdered a substantial number of journalists and photographers...and you can perhaps imagine what they must have seen to "deserve" immediate execution.

People may join the military from "altruistic" motives...to "serve their country", blah, blah, blah.

But, as always, you are what you do.

When your job is crimes against humanity, then you become such a criminal yourself.


ahhh_money_is_comfort
I want the troops home too. I want them to come home after a VICTORY and not a defeat.

Don't hold your breath on that one. The U.S. has already announced a plan to construct four large "permanent" U.S. bases in Iraq.

It would seem likely that the only U.S. troops coming home anytime soon will do so in a first-class body bag.

Which they will have earned, of course.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[RedStarOverChina]

"immoral behaviors breed immoral behaviors."
I agree with redstar2000.

[Commie Girl]

Memorial Day should be used for the U$ to reflect on all the horrors they have perpetrated upon the rest of the world.

I totally support the resistance.

[1936]

I can think of one thing to be honored for? How about your right to say "Fu** Memorial Day? You can thank soldiers for that.

Yes indeed....i remeber when the brave marienes came into leicster square fighting for my right to freedom of speech, its not atall the fact that these are the soldiers being used to slowly decrease our rights.


Use memorial day for honouring the soviet troops that saved europe from the nazis.
Use memorial day for honouring Red spain for standing against Franco.
Use memorial day for honouring the viet cong that died for independance from France and Japan

But dear lord i beg of you, dont honour fucking U$ marienes.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 28 2005, 11:00 AM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 28 2005, 11:00 AM)
[email protected] 28 2005, 04:35 AM
I don't support the troops.
A lot of people say that whether or not you condone the war or the actions of the federal government, you should support the American troops. Well, fuck that.
I absolutely condemn America's presence in Iraq. The troops are (1) guilty of joining the US military and (2) pawns of a corrupt plot to dominate yet another sovereign nation for the benefits of the private sector.
I support the resistance against the occupation, and therefore against the troops.
1 and 2 are not crimes in any country or any international treaty or law. You only THINK they are guilty. [/b]
They are guilty of being mercenaries of the capitalist class and therefore they lose my support. It's quite rational.

Like redstar said, when it's your job to commit crimes against humanity, you become a criminal yourself.
Well said, RS.

[OleMarxco]

Aha....Assuming that 'criminality' (isn't that a burgeouise definition of the geneva convention, too?) is killing other humans, then the insurgents of the "other side" (i.e. the iraqi insurgents) also fall under this category, correct, am I right or am I right? ;)

[Colombia]

Many of you seem blinded by your ideologys. Would you punish a five year old for kicking you in the same way of a 20 year old?

Most of these soldiers don't see the flaws of their ways but should not be condemned for ignorance. Many of these soldiers actually are only fighting for the "free education" they get in order to survive in life.

Kill the master but not the servants.

[1936]

If a dog is treated badly, and then it therfor turns into a dangerous dog because of its owners treatment of it. You put the dog down because its a dangour to you.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 28 2005, 03:58 PM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 28 2005, 03:58 PM)
[email protected] 28 2005, 02:05 PM
Fuck memorial day, America havent done anything worth being honoured. And the American troops in ANY war havent done anything worth honouring.
I can think of one thing to be honored for? How about your right to say "Fu** Memorial Day? You can thank soldiers for that.

Of course you can thank them for everything that follows from that. [/b]
You do realize Hitler wanted to leave America alone, dont you?

Vietnam... Oh yeah those commies were really out for America! They werent trying to overthrow the French imperialism until America came to back France up.

[1936]

The viet cong (viet minh) were supported by America in ridding the country of all imperealists, until Minh let hes political stance be known

[Colombia]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 09:16 PM
If a dog is treated badly, and then it therfor turns into a dangerous dog because of its owners treatment of it. You put the dog down because its a dangour to you.
A different outcome could be that the dog grows tired of being treated badly and therefore gets rid of the owner.

Kind of like how the workers will soon grow tired of being under the control of the bourgeousy.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 09:26 PM
The viet cong (viet minh) were supported by America in ridding the country of all imperealists, until Minh let hes political stance be known
The Viet-Cong were originally fighting France's control of Vietnam. America decided to back up France and help keep Diem in control in southern Vietnam.

[Ele'ill]

You would have to be completey ignorant if you didnt know you would be fighting a war of Imperial expansion.

Why should I support soldiers who actively fight for oppression?

I thought the left was supposed to be teaching the population so ignorance on such things would not be a major issue. Why should I support your revolution that isn't activley fighting against oppression?


Kind of like how the workers will soon grow tired of being under the control of the bourgeousy.

Soon? I unfortunatly doubt it although I have seen more polarization amoung the US population. It's coming down to you're either right or you're left. Which isn't necessarily good.

I say support the troops that do have good intentions even if you don't know who they are or how many of them exist. They are out there.

[codyvo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 11:05 PM
For all the Americans out there; Memorial Day is fast approaching, a day to remeber all the American soldiers who died fighting to expand the Empire.

So I wanted to get your opinions; if we should support soldiers fighting in the American Imperial wars, or not. Can you really love the soldier but hate the war.

Without the soldiers there wouldnt be a war right?

I put this in OI so all the "others" can respond as well.
Well I'm not sure of the history of Memorial Day, but if it was to honor the soldiers of WWII then I think they should be honored, they took down the nazis.

We here at RevolutionaryLeft support the working class so I think it would be hypocritical to not support the soldiers, they are the text book example of working class.

Their would be a war and it would be worse. If no soldiers volunteered we would likely enstate the draft, and that would be terrible.

[codyvo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 07:34 PM

They are guilty of being mercenaries of the capitalist class and therefore they lose my support. It's quite rational.
By this logic couldn't you say that it is any workers fault for being slaves for working for the corporations that they work for?
In which case you are not at all a communist, socialist, anarchist or anybody else that claims to be an advocate of the working class.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 03:11 PM
Aha....Assuming that 'criminality' (isn't that a burgeouise definition of the geneva convention, too?) is killing other humans, then the insurgents of the "other side" (i.e. the iraqi insurgents) also fall under this category, correct, am I right or am I right? ;)

The geneva convention was a bourgeois treaty signed by bourgeois governments and upheld by the UN, an organization of bourgeois countries.
Anyone in Iraq fighting against the US occupation is fighting against oppression, and they have my support.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort+May 28 2005, 04:58 PM--> (ahhh_money_is_comfort @ May 28 2005, 04:58 PM)
[email protected] 28 2005, 02:05 PM
Fuck memorial day, America havent done anything worth being honoured. And the American troops in ANY war havent done anything worth honouring.
I can think of one thing to be honored for? How about your right to say "Fu** Memorial Day? You can thank soldiers for that.

Of course you can thank them for everything that follows from that. [/b]
Fucking bullshit. The few current freedoms and social securities that the workingclass enjoys are the consequence of the struggle of the proletarian social movements.

It's not the soldier who stands up to tyrants and exploiters, they are the protectors of tyrants and exploiters. From the thousands of laborers killed in the late 19th, early 20th century US, the dozens of students killed while protesting, to the millions of non-Americans. Soldiers have made clear where their loyalty is.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 06:39 PM
"immoral behaviors breed immoral behaviors."
I agree with redstar2000.
That is why I'm against violent revolutionaries.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Commie [email protected] 28 2005, 06:48 PM
Memorial Day should be used for the U$ to reflect on all the horrors they have perpetrated upon the rest of the world.

I totally support the resistance.
Good point, but we don't do that. We don't use Memorial Day for that purpose. It is for something else.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 05:11 PM

How many of them are fighting?

I'd say that the vast majority of resistance fighters will, naturally, be Iraqi nationalists from poor places, with high unemployment.


Are you talking about the Saddam loyalist too?

The Saddam loyalists are in the minority I would say.
Hmmm. What if?

What if I would 'say' differently? Then my point is equaly valid as yours.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by RedZeppelin+May 29 2005, 12:52 AM--> (RedZeppelin @ May 29 2005, 12:52 AM)
[email protected] 28 2005, 03:11 PM
Aha....Assuming that 'criminality' (isn't that a burgeouise definition of the geneva convention, too?) is killing other humans, then the insurgents of the "other side" (i.e. the iraqi insurgents) also fall under this category, correct, am I right or am I right? ;)

The geneva convention was a bourgeois treaty signed by bourgeois governments and upheld by the UN, an organization of bourgeois countries.
Anyone in Iraq fighting against the US occupation is fighting against oppression, and they have my support. [/b]
Can you help me here? Was the Soviet Union burgeouise? Or how about Poland? Or how about Easter Germany? Did they sign the UN treaties regarding war and conduct of war? Were there any other Soviet Bloc countries that I may have missed?

[bed_of_nails]

Do you know how to answer numerous posts with one of your own?

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Non-Sectarian Bastard!+May 29 2005, 01:23 AM--> (Non-Sectarian Bastard! @ May 29 2005, 01:23 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 04:58 PM

[email protected] 28 2005, 02:05 PM
Fuck memorial day, America havent done anything worth being honoured. And the American troops in ANY war havent done anything worth honouring.
I can think of one thing to be honored for? How about your right to say "Fu** Memorial Day? You can thank soldiers for that.

Of course you can thank them for everything that follows from that.
Fucking bullshit. The few current freedoms and social securities that the workingclass enjoys are the consequence of the struggle of the proletarian social movements.

It's not the soldier who stands up to tyrants and exploiters, they are the protectors of tyrants and exploiters. From the thousands of laborers killed in the late 19th, early 20th century US, the dozens of students killed while protesting, to the millions of non-Americans. Soldiers have made clear where their loyalty is. [/b]
Of course. Soliders don't do 'social justice'. That is not thier job, that is yours. Soldiers don't do social things like education, health, welfare, or employment. They do things like right to free speech, right to vote, right to worship God, right to debate political ideas, right to communicate political ideas, etc.

So get down and do your part instead of blaming soliders for the jobs your not doing.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 01:57 AM
Do you know how to answer numerous posts with one of your own?
Stop Spaming.

[Colombia]

Originally posted by RedZeppelin+May 28 2005, 11:52 PM--> (RedZeppelin @ May 28 2005, 11:52 PM)
[email protected] 28 2005, 03:11 PM
Aha....Assuming that 'criminality' (isn't that a burgeouise definition of the geneva convention, too?) is killing other humans, then the insurgents of the "other side" (i.e. the iraqi insurgents) also fall under this category, correct, am I right or am I right? ;)

The geneva convention was a bourgeois treaty signed by bourgeois governments and upheld by the UN, an organization of bourgeois countries.
Anyone in Iraq fighting against the US occupation is fighting against oppression, and they have my support. [/b]
Even the Islamic fundamentalists who don't think that rule under similiar guidelines that the Taliban used were bad?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by ahhh_money_is_comfort
Soldiers don't do 'social justice'. That is not their job, that is yours. Soldiers don't do social things like education, health, welfare, or employment. They do things like right to free speech, right to vote, right to worship God, right to debate political ideas, right to communicate political ideas, etc.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Soldiers shoot at people...preferably those who are unable to shoot back.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by redstar2000+May 29 2005, 07:36 AM--> (redstar2000 @ May 29 2005, 07:36 AM)
ahhh_money_is_comfort
Soldiers don't do 'social justice'. That is not their job, that is yours. Soldiers don't do social things like education, health, welfare, or employment. They do things like right to free speech, right to vote, right to worship God, right to debate political ideas, right to communicate political ideas, etc.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Soldiers shoot at people...preferably those who are unable to shoot back.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
I believe that is inclusive with "They do things like right to free speech, right to vote, right to worship God, right to debate political ideas, right to communicate political ideas, etc".

It is a smart soldiers job to make the other guy die for his cause and to not die for your own. So yes, it is preferable to shoot enemy who is an easy target. And yes it is not thier job to do social things like health care, education, or employment. See the thread on pacifism. Soldiers don't do things like compassion and social justce, that is your job.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by Colombia+May 29 2005, 05:50 AM--> (Colombia @ May 29 2005, 05:50 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 11:52 PM

[email protected] 28 2005, 03:11 PM
Aha....Assuming that 'criminality' (isn't that a burgeouise definition of the geneva convention, too?) is killing other humans, then the insurgents of the "other side" (i.e. the iraqi insurgents) also fall under this category, correct, am I right or am I right? ;)

The geneva convention was a bourgeois treaty signed by bourgeois governments and upheld by the UN, an organization of bourgeois countries.
Anyone in Iraq fighting against the US occupation is fighting against oppression, and they have my support.
Even the Islamic fundamentalists who don't think that rule under similiar guidelines that the Taliban used were bad? [/b]
Nope.

When the Taliban were kicked out of Afganistan the locals did not continue to live like the Taliban. The first thing the locals did was shave thier beards and dance to Elvis. Things the Taliban would kill them for.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 07:55 PM

Can you help me here? Was the Soviet Union burgeouise? Or how about Poland? Or how about Easter Germany? Did they sign the UN treaties regarding war and conduct of war? Were there any other Soviet Bloc countries that I may have missed?

No, they were not (for the most part) bourgois nations, but that does not negate the role of "peace" treaties as a means of national hegemony particularly for bourgeois nations.

[Intifada]

Hmmm. What if?

What if I would 'say' differently? Then my point is equaly valid as yours.

Prove it.

[ahhh_money_is_comfort]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 09:15 PM

Hmmm. What if?

What if I would 'say' differently? Then my point is equaly valid as yours.

Prove it.
You mean:

If a communist states an unsupported fact with "I would say.......". That is proof enough.

But...

If I say an unsupported fact with "I would say.......". That is not enough proof?

That is hypocritical.

[Ele'ill]

Soldiers shoot at people...preferably those who are unable to shoot back.

I believe there are only a handful of level headed soldiers out there and they are the ones refusing to fight. Violence breeds itself.

QUOTE (RedStarOverChina @ May 28 2005, 06:39 PM)

"immoral behaviors breed immoral behaviors."
I agree with redstar2000.


That is why I'm against violent revolutionaries.



;)

[Intifada]

You mean:

If a communist states an unsupported fact with "I would say.......". That is proof enough.

But...

If I say an unsupported fact with "I would say.......". That is not enough proof?

That is hypocritical.

The Iraqi resistance is not monolithic.

The Iraqi resistance is made up of various different groups, fighting for various reasons. The only common aim they share, is the expulsion of all foreign occupiers.

Simply put, there are three distinct categories that all the groups fall into: There are the Nationalists (secular/muslim) who simply want an end to the occupation; the Islamic Fundamentalists, who wish to create some kind of Islamic state; and the former Baathists, who want to go back to the old days of Saddam Hussein.

Now, how anybody can say that the remnants of Saddam's supporters make up the majority of the Iraqi resistance is beyond me.

One thing is for sure, however: The resistance against US/Coalition troops will not end until the occupiers are rightfully booted out of Iraq.

[workersunity]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 08:05 AM
Fuck memorial day, America havent done anything worth being honoured. And the American troops in ANY war havent done anything worth honouring.
True and True

[Rangeley]

Oh? What about defending your right to say that?

See, this nice thing called free speech wouldnt be around if it werent for those soldiers who defended against Hitler.

[slim]

The war against Hitler isnt quite like the war against terror.

[Rangeley]

I agree, they are different.

However, his statement was:

Fuck memorial day, America havent done anything worth being honoured. And the American troops in ANY war havent done anything worth honouring.
Which is clearly incorrect.

[Intifada]

Rangeley, what would you say to people like Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejía Castillo and Sergeant Abdullah William Webster?

What about their freedom to dissent?

[Rangeley]

Freedom to dissent is one thing, refusing to participate in a war is another. Im fairly sure both of them refused to participate, though they wer ein the army and had to by law. They refused to follow orders, citing moral disagreements with the war in Iraq.

They can disagree with the war, speak up about the war, and protest the war. These are within their rights. However, refusing to follow a direct order can lead to court marshalling, as it did in this case.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 03:11 PM
Oh? What about defending your right to say that?

See, this nice thing called free speech wouldnt be around if it werent for those soldiers who defended against Hitler.
You do realize Hitler planned on leaving America alone? Hitler wanted to control Europe, he didnt give a shit about America.

My Imperialist US Professor teacher even acknowledges this.

[Intifada]

Freedom to dissent is one thing, refusing to participate in a war is another. Im fairly sure both of them refused to participate, though they wer ein the army and had to by law. They refused to follow orders, citing moral disagreements with the war in Iraq.


USA: Freedom to dissent denied (http://news.amnesty.org/index/ENGAMR511742004)

According to the administration of the United States, "moral clarity" was central to the reasons for going to war with Iraq. Saddam Hussein's regime was bad and had to be changed - it was the right thing to do. Tony Blair echoed this view when he said that there was a strong moral case for Britain going to war with Iraq.

Unfortunately for some, the right to stand up for your moral beliefs and act upon them only extended in one direction. While it showed "moral clarity" to take part in the war; two US soldiers learnt that dissenting was a punishable offence. Dissenting from the official view of the morality or otherwise of this war led to imprisonment for Staff Sergeant Camilo Mejía Castillo and Sergeant Abdullah William Webster.

That is not "freedom."

That is what some Capitalists here have accused Communists of: Forcing, and then imprisoning, people to do something they do not agree with.

On 21 May 2004, a US military court sentenced Staff Sergeant Castillo of the Florida National Guard to the maximum penalty of one year's imprisonment for desertion. He had refused to return to his unit in Iraq, citing moral reasons, the legality of the war and the conduct of US troops towards Iraqi civilians and prisoners.

The sentence was imposed despite a pending decision by the army on his application for conscientious objector status. During the trial, his lawyers were not permitted to present arguments relating to his conscientious objection, including describing the abuse he witnessed.


That sounds like a fair trial, doesn't it?

Following the recent US election, President Bush assured people of different belief that he would "be your president regardless of your faith, and I don't expect you to agree with me necessarily on religion." To be consistent, the President must take action in the case of Muslim soldier, Abdullah Webster, imprisoned for following his own religious beliefs.

Sergeant Webster submitted a conscientious objector application in September 2003 to secure his release from military obligations in Iraq on the basis that his religion prohibited him from participating in any aggressive war against, or in any oppression or injustice to, Muslims or non-Muslims. He is a US citizen who has served in the US army since 1985. He had been based in Bamberg in Germany since 2001, from whence he was requested to deploy to Iraq between March and April 2003.

Hypocrisy?

Not surprising, as we are dealing with the US.

[codyvo]

Thats true bedofnails, Hitler and american corporate big-wigs got a long quite nicley, but I do believe that the soldiers in WWII should be honored, they helped free the Jews and win back France for its people.

[Rangeley]

Originally posted by bed_of_nails+May 30 2005, 07:56 PM--> (bed_of_nails @ May 30 2005, 07:56 PM)
[email protected] 30 2005, 03:11 PM
Oh? What about defending your right to say that?

See, this nice thing called free speech wouldnt be around if it werent for those soldiers who defended against Hitler.
You do realize Hitler planned on leaving America alone? Hitler wanted to control Europe, he didnt give a shit about America.

My Imperialist US Professor teacher even acknowledges this. [/b]
Recently, they found documents that show he was indeed interested in war with America, and beleived America to be under Jewish control.

And also you must remember, he did declare war on America, not the other way around.

[codyvo]

Hitler knew america wasn't run by Jews and he knew Germany wasn' run by Jews also, he needed an excuse to convince others to join his anti-semitic rampage, and like I said, Hitler was very cuddly with american corporate big-wigs.

[Rangeley]

Thats certainly an interesting claim, do you have a source for it?

[codyvo]

Ford sold cars to Hitler, and where do you think Hitler got his oil from, all from american oil companies, also, do you really think Roosevelt and Churchill hated Hitler, they didn't! They were all imperialist, homphobic, anti-semites, granted Hitler was worse, much worse, Roosevelt and Churchill were not model citizens.

[codyvo]

Oh and I forgot to mention, IBM supplied him with computers, yes IBM was around and yes their was computers then they were just nothing like we think of them now.

[Rangeley]

Again, do you have a source?

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by Rangeley+May 30 2005, 11:54 PM--> (Rangeley @ May 30 2005, 11:54 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 07:56 PM

[email protected] 30 2005, 03:11 PM
Oh? What about defending your right to say that?

See, this nice thing called free speech wouldnt be around if it werent for those soldiers who defended against Hitler.
You do realize Hitler planned on leaving America alone? Hitler wanted to control Europe, he didnt give a shit about America.

My Imperialist US Professor teacher even acknowledges this.
Recently, they found documents that show he was indeed interested in war with America, and beleived America to be under Jewish control.

And also you must remember, he did declare war on America, not the other way around. [/b]
Offer me proof of this. If a princeton graduate professor doesnt know of these, I doubt they exist.

[Jersey Devil]

Your allegations are irrelevant as Congress long ago passed the Trading With the Enemy Act to stop Americans from trading with Germany and others. Even business ventures of Prescott Bush were seized by the federal government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_With_the_Enemy_Act

[codyvo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 12:13 AM
Again, do you have a source?
Not that any of these corporations even try to deny it but here is one of my sites for this http://www.wealth4freedom.com/Elkhorn2.html

[Rangeley]

Originally posted by bed_of_nails+May 31 2005, 12:14 AM--> (bed_of_nails @ May 31 2005, 12:14 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 11:54 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 07:56 PM

[email protected] 30 2005, 03:11 PM
Oh? What about defending your right to say that?

See, this nice thing called free speech wouldnt be around if it werent for those soldiers who defended against Hitler.
You do realize Hitler planned on leaving America alone? Hitler wanted to control Europe, he didnt give a shit about America.

My Imperialist US Professor teacher even acknowledges this.
Recently, they found documents that show he was indeed interested in war with America, and beleived America to be under Jewish control.

And also you must remember, he did declare war on America, not the other way around.
Offer me proof of this. If a princeton graduate professor doesnt know of these, I doubt they exist. [/b]
Hitlers Second Book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1929631162/104-3022272-6352733?v=glance)
You can also look for other sites about this book.

And then, His declaration of war:
Here (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/hitler_declares_war.html)

[bed_of_nails]

That never said anything about Jews running America.

It said they would eventually clash, but that doesnt change the fact Hitler didnt want to have anything to do with America. Americans were supplying them with supplies for quite a while after all.

[Rangeley]

That never said anything about Jews running America.
Your right, that never said it. But the book itself did, which is why I mentioned you could also look elsewhere for more information.

[Jersey Devil]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 12:35 AM
Americans were supplying them with supplies for quite a while after all.
As I pointed out before, irrelevant. Individual Americans finance FARC, Hamas, and other groups. Does the mean that "America" supports these groups, certainly not.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2005, 12:37 AM

That never said anything about Jews running America.
Your right, that never said it. But the book itself did, which is why I mentioned you could also look elsewhere for more information.
You have the burden of proof where you supply me with the information.


As I pointed out before, irrelevant. Individual Americans finance FARC, Hamas, and other groups. Does the mean that "America" supports these groups, certainly not.

Sorry, that was world war one I was thinking about I just realized.

[Jersey Devil]

One last point, in a past post on this thread you stated:


You do realize Hitler planned on leaving America alone? Hitler wanted to control Europe, he didnt give a shit about America.

My Imperialist US Professor teacher even acknowledges this.

Blatently false, the United States only entered the War after being attacked by Japan and even then it was Germany that declared war on the United States.

[bed_of_nails]

Originally posted by Jersey [email protected] 31 2005, 12:49 AM
One last point, in a past post on this thread you stated:


You do realize Hitler planned on leaving America alone? Hitler wanted to control Europe, he didnt give a shit about America.

My Imperialist US Professor teacher even acknowledges this.

Blatently false, the United States only entered the War after being attacked by Japan and even then it was Germany that declared war on the United States.
But he did not directly attack the United States.

Hitler had no intentions of conquering America.

[Rangeley]

So he declared war just for fun?

And initiated the Amerika Bomber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika_Bomber) project, one that would create bomber plans capable of reaching america, just for fun too? And by the way, this was started long before America was ever attacked by Japan.

[MKS]

But he did not directly attack the United States

There was a u-boat attack on the eastern seaboard of the US, it wasnt very successful, but proved Germany had the means and the motive to attack America.
If Germany had won the battle of Britain, the battle of America would have been next.

Off topic: How come so many threads degenerate to a discussion on Hitler?

[Jersey Devil]

Because unfortunately many people on this board like to manipulate history to try and compare Nazi Germany to the modern United States.

[bed_of_nails]

Oddly, it was a capitalist who started it this time.

[codyvo]

Strange how the capitalist knows a lot more about the nazis and nazi literature than anyone else.

[Rangeley]

Oddly, it was a capitalist who started it this time. Except that I was citing the war against Hitler as a time where American soldiers did honorably, as someone made the ignorant claim that American soldiers never did anything good.

Strange how the capitalist knows a lot more about the nazis and nazi literature than anyone else.
While Im sure this is an intended insinuation that I am a nazi sympathizer, I will take it as a compliment.

[Jersey Devil]

I've already made my case, federal law prohibited private citizens and corporations from trading with Nazi Germany and Hitler declared war against the United States. These two facts can not be disputed.