Why we really do support the Troops

[AlwaysAnarchy]

I've been reading a lot of threads where people have been saying how they want US soliders murdered, beheaded, even innocent non-combantants like construction workers and what not people have said they want them killed.

Well, I would like to point out that I think I and the big majority of left wing people here really DO support the troops even though we don't support the war and here's why:

We support the troops because we want them OUT of Iraq! In other words, we do NOT want them getting killed for some stupid, imperialist reason. So we want to save their lives not send them off to die like Bush does.

Once they come back to America, we want to fight to give them healthcare, support, and human and economic rights! We want to support them so they can marry ANYONE they wish - male or female.

And finally, we want to support our troops cause we know, guess what? Most them of are really working class people who are there because they have no other choice, or just want a better life for themselves and their family and can't afford college. We know that if a revolution ever happens we will need the support of some of the more progressive troops to fight with us and against the government!

You know, being "ultra left" may sound good and all in chat boards, but in reality, it is much more useful to be pragmatic, thoughtful and forward-thinking, thinking about the future than just simply hating on the mostly working class troops.

[Seven Stars]

Well said!

[Red October]

excellent points, PA. im glad to see you've been unrestricted.

[Guns of Brixton]

We support the troops because we want them OUT of Iraq! In other words, we do NOT want them getting killed for some stupid, imperialist reason. So we want to save their lives not send them off to die like Bush does.

While that is true in some ways, you are essentially playing with words and confusing the issue. When troops fight for the empire, we support their defeat. We support the liberation forces in Iraq.


innocent non-combantants like construction workers

They are not certainly innocent. I don't even think that they are really non-combatants. The non-military imperial forces in Iraq are closer to mercenaries that provide logistic, infrastructure and security! support for the US. The fact that they are not directly in the military is more a reflection of organizational, financial and political expediency than a of their being "innocent non-combatants".

Revolutionaries in the US are on the same side as the Iraqui people fighting US forces. We celebrate the empire's defeats.

Part of our role as internationalists in the belly of the beast is to fight for US withdrawal from colonialist wars. When they do not withdraw, we support their defeat.

It is not ultra-leftist to support the death of US troops in Iraq. This, I believe, is a dividing line question between revolutionaries and liberals in the US. Which side are you on? It is a war and there are fundamentally only two sides here. Are you on the side of the empire or on the side fo the Iraqui resistance? If you are against the empire, then you support their defeat in Iraq.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 07:57 pm
Well said!

excellent points, PA. im glad to see you've been unrestricted.

Thanks! :wub:

[Rollo]

I agree, a lot ( not all ) are trigger happy rednecks. They were not drafted. Supporting them is silly.

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Actually, many if not most are working class Black and Hispanic youth.

[perdido]

Many many good points. It's true in this "war" there is no draft so all of the troops fighting are there of their own accord. But you must realize that for some this is the only option they have. My father joined the marines right before the vietnam war. Not because he supported the slaughtering of vietnamese, but because he wanted to go to college and it was the only way he would be able to afford it, back then the armed services helped you through college if you put in 3 or more years of service.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 03:39 pm
Actually, many if not most are working class Black and Hispanic youth.
Okay, so now race is a factor...? :unsure:

Could you just say most are working class? It sounds at least a little racist to imply that "Black" and "Hispanic" lives are more important than "White" ones. I feel sorry for anyone who holds your position on the troops because you're completely misrepresenting it.

[Comrade_Scott]

This is a tightrope situation...i have never supported the death of innocent troops because most of them view the army as a last resort job for an education..... however they kne the risks involved in joining an imperialistic army so honestly i feel little sorrow.. but it is wrong to support the slaughter of the troops(most troops anyway)

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 04:39 pm
Actually, many if not most are working class Black and Hispanic youth.
What about the officers that were in an RTOC program went to college, and went into the military as a career choice, and are now fighting in iraq? What about the ones that enlisted to the military as a career choice? What about the ones that wanted to fight in the war? What about the video tapes of soldiers getting pumped up to go to war, and want to fight in ther war, and die for "their," country? What about the iraqi working class, and innocents, don't they count?

Furthermore, what about the troops that would never want to join in a revolution? How can you be so sure the troops would want to join in the revolution? What if the majority of them are counter-revolutionary?

[manic expression]

Originally posted by MonicaTTmed+November 19, 2006 09:34 pm--> (MonicaTTmed @ November 19, 2006 09:34 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2006 03:39 pm
Actually, many if not most are working class Black and Hispanic youth.
Okay, so now race is a factor...? :unsure:

Could you just say most are working class? It sounds at least a little racist to imply that "Black" and "Hispanic" lives are more important than "White" ones. I feel sorry for anyone who holds your position on the troops because you're completely misrepresenting it. [/b]
Hispanics and blacks, in general, have far less opportunities in the US than whites do. That's just the way it is. Citing their race was done to underline that they are disenfranchised along race lines as well as class lines. This doesn't mean they're "worth more", but it does mean that it is likely that they joined the military because of the complete lack of options they have as poor minorities in the US.

That's the way I saw the comment.

[RebelDog]

I'm from the UK which has thousands of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan like the US. I do not support UK troops in their murderous rampage in Iraq anymore than I support the people who sent them there. The troops are operating illegally in a war of conquest. If this is about morals why don't you support those resisting the occupation as they are the only ones who legally and morally operating in any kind of justifiable context. We should support the troops when they wake up and turn their guns 180 degrees. I do feel really sorry for those working class families who have lost sons/daughters in Iraq but what about the Iraqi families who have paid a much higher price because people were willing to fight for US/UK imperialism. In the end the elite in Washington/London escape without a scratch whilst we fast approach 1 million dead in Iraq.

[Guns of Brixton]

This is an imperialist war of occupaton. The empire has, by extreme brutal force, occupied another country. People in Iraq are resisting that force and they are dying and being tortured for it.

A revolutionary living in the belly of the empire, when it is engaged in wars of occupation and plunder, can only adopt a position of revolutionary defeatism. Any other position is a betrayal of the international proletariat and the people of the world.

Do you doubt that the working class in Iraq supports the "slaughter" of US troops? Do you doubt that the vast majority of the people of the world support the defeat of the US in Iraq? Why should the stand of people in the US be any different?

Of course the soldiers are working class. When have the capitalists not used the working class to fight their wars? The bourgeoisie has used their dominance of the ideological, political and economic superstructures members of the working class to fight their war. It chews the flesh of the working class and, as a reflection of its racist nature, especially it chews the flesh of oppressed minorities.

US troops have a choice. Their activity their is a form of education. The nature of the US occupation is clear. They are faced everyday with a first hand graphic challenge to all the lies they have been told about the nature of the war and the nature of the empire.

It's true that they are also immersed in a high-pressure situation with intense social and physical intimidation. They are in a difficult situation.

But, they have options. They can simply refuse to serve and face the consequences of being beaten, jailed and ridiculed. They can desert. They can turn their guns around and frag their officers. The can form revolutionary cells and forment sabotage and revolt.

I know these are difficult choices, but their path of least resistance is to be good soldiers of the empire, and, when they take that path, revolutionaries must unite with the people of the world in hoping they lose and celebrating their deaths

[Enragé]

to support the death of working class people, thrust into war because they desired a better life than the one in which they grew up (for alot of people going into the military is the only ensurance of a decent paying job and education) is sick.

However, this does not mean we should refrain from supporting the iraqi resistance against this imperialist occupation.

We must hope, do anything in our power to ensure the defeat of imperialism, and thus of the occupation in iraq.

So
its up to the US soldiers
1. get killed (i'd prefer they didnt, except for some real fucks)
2. desert, run away
3. shoot your officers/join the resistance

[Ricardo]

Originally posted by manic expression+November 19, 2006 10:19 pm--> (manic expression @ November 19, 2006 10:19 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 09:34 pm

[email protected] 19, 2006 03:39 pm
Actually, many if not most are working class Black and Hispanic youth.
Okay, so now race is a factor...? :unsure:

Could you just say most are working class? It sounds at least a little racist to imply that "Black" and "Hispanic" lives are more important than "White" ones. I feel sorry for anyone who holds your position on the troops because you're completely misrepresenting it.
Hispanics and blacks, in general, have far less opportunities in the US than whites do. That's just the way it is. Citing their race was done to underline that they are disenfranchised along race lines as well as class lines. This doesn't mean they're "worth more", but it does mean that it is likely that they joined the military because of the complete lack of options they have as poor minorities in the US.

That's the way I saw the comment. [/b]
I think PA was reffering to Rollo who said about the soldiers, " a lot, (not all) are trigger happy rednecks"

[Enragé]

oh and those "non-combatants" are collaborators

you know
like the people the resistance shot in WW2, and were right to do so

[which doctor]

I support soldiers who desert, go AWOL, refuse their officer's orders, mutiny, etc. I don't support troops who continue to kill.

[tecumseh]

I support the troops to be used as fertilizer in Iraq.

[Matty_UK]

I find the leftists who advocate the deaths of troops seem to be from more middle class backgrounds and don't know the grunts personally and can easily call for deaths abstractly without the unease of thinking of old school mates in the army. Fucking ivory tower academics. PA, you will probably get some flack from some people for your post but you're completely right.

[Political_Chucky]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 02:08 pm
Many many good points. It's true in this "war" there is no draft so all of the troops fighting are there of their own accord. But you must realize that for some this is the only option they have. My father joined the marines right before the vietnam war. Not because he supported the slaughtering of vietnamese, but because he wanted to go to college and it was the only way he would be able to afford it, back then the armed services helped you through college if you put in 3 or more years of service.
That was then, this is now.... I consider every human being to be just that....A HUMAN BEING! I do have sympathy for the men who are dying in iraq and other pointless wars, but at the same time, I condemn the army and anyone who join it. As people have previously stated, the men joined on their own accord and to join for school finances is ridiculous due to the many opportunities after highschool which are a better solution then the joining the army will ever be.

I spoke to one of my teachers who did serve in the army in the past back around the 1970s-80s and I see he is an intelligent man, and he certainly knows his politics. But when I spoke to him whether or not the Army did any good for him, he told me that it was good, and then it was bad. If he hadn't joined, it wouldn't of made him the man he is today but at the same time, it didn't help him for shit when it came to the working life here in America.

That being said, we must remember that these men are also human and do have the ability to agree or disagree with the politics today. They also have the ability to choose their own morals and if they would like to risk their lives for a "greater" college education, be willing to shoot another man, woman, or child, and take orders from a higher official who really doesn't give a rats ass whether or not they make it out alive, then I condemn them too.



Actually, many if not most are working class Black and Hispanic youth.


And yet the higher officials are white. But I do say, the United States is not so much a racist country as it once was. It’s not just as simple as "your white and your black." And that is because the United States is a bigger melting pot then it once was. There is still racism but like I said, it’s just much more complicated now a days. Anyway, I’ll try and not go off subject. I can tell you that any men who join the infantry are trigger happy even if they don't believe it. And the men who believe they wouldn't shoot their pistol in combat are even more ignorant.

[violencia.Proletariat]

We support the troops because we want them OUT of Iraq! In other words, we do NOT want them getting killed for some stupid, imperialist reason.

No. We want the troops out of Iraq because they're killing Iraqis not the other way around. The troops volunteered to kill people for a living. They have enslaved themselves to the class enemy.


Most them of are really working class people who are there because they have no other choice, or just want a better life for themselves and their family and can't afford college.

I'd imagine lots of them are there because they come from military families or families under the illusion that the american government is a good thing.


We know that if a revolution ever happens we will need the support of some of the more progressive troops to fight with us and against the government!

In other words, support the troops that will mutiny, fuck the rest.


it is much more useful to be pragmatic, thoughtful and forward-thinking, thinking about the future than just simply hating on the mostly working class troops.

Actually most of us don't spend time "hating" on them. I have never heard of an organization that functions to treat soldiers badly.

By the way, make sure your pragmatism doesn't become you selling out your principles.

[Red October]

there are not 2 black and white sides to this conflict. many troops in iraq are rednecks who want to go "kill towelheads", but many of the insurgents are islamists who want to instal a theocracy. true, many iraqis are brutally punished for resisting the occupation, but many iraqis are also tortured and beheaded just for being sunni or shiite. just because someone fights the US doesnt mean theyre good too. skinheads fight the cops, but do we embrace them? i support the troops in the sense that i dont want them to die, but i dont support their mission. i sympathize with them, as many did not see other options and we all know how good the military is at tricking people with its offers of money and education. just have some human compassion for them. we try to save them from the recruiters out of compassion, but once they sign their name on the paper they become the enemy? i know many of those soldiers would readily join the revolution and turn their guns on their officers. many of them are already dissolusioned with the war and know what a farce it is. do you think theyre there becuase they choose to be? alot of them are national guard and army reserve, branches that many people join for the money and benefits. i bet alot of them werent thinking that far ahead, which is a mistake, but one you have to understand.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

They are class traitors. end of story. Ruling class wars are not our wars. Our war is class war, and the People's war.

[Political_Chucky]

Originally posted by Red October [email protected] 19, 2006 07:18 pm
we try to save them from the recruiters out of compassion, but once they sign their name on the paper they become the enemy? i know many of those soldiers would readily join the revolution and turn their guns on their officers. many of them are already dissolusioned with the war and know what a farce it is. do you think theyre there becuase they choose to be? alot of them are national guard and army reserve, branches that many people join for the money and benefits. i bet alot of them werent thinking that far ahead, which is a mistake, but one you have to understand.
See what your describing is not a hatred for the system, but just for a hatred of the U.S. leader. A majority of U.S. Soldiers do not believe in most leftist ideas or have any knowledge of what it means to be a leftist. What most U.S. soldiers claim to be fighting for is the "American Dream" and for their patriotism. Do you really think after the war soldiers renounce their country or its system? No. What happens with a majority of these soldiers is that they either come back home, wanting to go back to help their fellow soldiers or they protest against the war in general, not the system.

Soldiers will not mutiny to fight for OUR cause, they will fight to get us out of an idiotic mess but will fight to keep capitalism in place. Of course there are a few exceptions but the majority of soldiers are ignorant of what is really going on.

[Joby]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2006 08:36 pm
I agree, a lot ( not all ) are trigger happy rednecks. They were not drafted. Supporting them is silly.
The busiest recruiting stations are in very urban areas.

The Govt hasn't made a draft because they know they have a system were people will have to join to be able to eat.

I don't wish for a slodiers death any more than an Iraqis, and I sympathize with both.

I've known men who've had to join or work for pratically nothing.


course, i wouldn't expect the high schoolers and liberal arts students on this board to understand what hunger is...

[Political_Chucky]

Originally posted by Joby+November 19, 2006 07:42 pm--> (Joby @ November 19, 2006 07:42 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2006 08:36 pm
I agree, a lot ( not all ) are trigger happy rednecks. They were not drafted. Supporting them is silly.
The busiest recruiting stations are in very urban areas.

The Govt hasn't made a draft because they know they have a system were people will have to join to be able to eat.

I don't wish for a slodiers death any more than an Iraqis, and I sympathize with both.

I've known men who've had to join or work for pratically nothing.


course, i wouldn't expect the high schoolers and liberal arts students on this board to understand what hunger is... [/b]
Explain how putting forth recruiters in urban areas has anything to do with hunger. It all has to do with propaganda recruiters put forth towards students in U.S. ghettos not necessarily with lack of food. Money is the #1 promotional tool recruiters use to interest students due to the rising tuition costs but in reality it is not much more then an average student would get by working. What the real bone to the hungry dogs here is the money for college which students will “get” once they join.

[The1337Marxist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 01:44 am
I find the leftists who advocate the deaths of troops seem to be from more middle class backgrounds and don't know the grunts personally and can easily call for deaths abstractly without the unease of thinking of old school mates in the army. Fucking ivory tower academics. PA, you will probably get some flack from some people for your post but you're completely right.
Though this is true it is not true to say that all middle class Americans are for the death of U.S. troops. I am living proof of this idea. I am a middle class citizen but wish for nothing more than to have our troops back in good health and in a timly manner. In addition to this point I am deeply saddened by the ignorance of those who say they that U.S. troops are only good for furtilizer. This only shows that these people have not the intellegance to realize that a nation without the prolatariat is nothing but the assholes who formerly ran it. Also those calling for a mutany are idiots due to the fact that they have no knowlege of the reprocusions of a failure to obey orders. These mental midgets have yet to realize that you cannot influence change in your government from a jail cell as well as you can out on the streets.

That is all.

[Entrails Konfetti]

On the one hand those of us who oppose the troops say there are ways to go to college other than joining the millitary.

On the other, as Communists we realize that in this society not everyone has the same opportunities. By saying they have other options is the same argument the bourgeoisie has on the workers " They made that choice as to what they are".

What if their options were limited, or they hadn't much choice? I can't really support the slaughter of innocent Iraqis in the name of empire building. I can't support what they're doing, and who they are isn't revolutionary. Supporting them would be like supporting stubborn conservative workers who oppose the actions of revolutionary workers. The soldiers are like scabs. You have to remember that there are reactionary elements of the working-class-- there will always be these elements.

The cry of "Support the troops, bring them home" was bound to translate to " Victory in Iraq under a time frame, so the troops can come home" because if you support the troops you support what they want: A victory in Iraq. And ofcourse the troops want to come home. Just like you want to go home after school or work.

But at the same time I can't support a theocracy either. If I support a theocracy I'm supporting class-society. Besides, I have yet to see self-determination ever work and not be touched by imperialists. I haven't seen the proletariat of a nation-state be able to organize against the national-bourgeoisie-- the national bourgoeisie always ends up calling everyone to arms against the imperialists. A nation state either becomes dominated by imperialists, or becomes imperialistic itself.

Where do I stand?
I stand for the workers of both countries to organize against imperialism.

If you dare to say I'm being utopian-- well how are you less utopian than me claiming that rooting for the national bourgoeisie of the third-world will guide us to Communism. There isn't a clear link to this. Sure the national bourgoeisie are more likely to take action against the imperialists than the workers of the world are to organize around Communism agaisnt the imperialists, but again there isn't a clear link between self-determination and Communism. I rather spend time rowing up the workers of the world, than being pragmatic for a group that isn't going to solve anything.

[The Grey Blur]

I think Dissenter put it really well but one must be also emphasised is that any Islamic or Capitalist resistance cannot be supported as this will only perpetuate the misery of Iraqis, not alleviate it. As Socialists we must give unconditional support to the workers and poor of Iraq, those with the true power, organised in unions and democratic militias to resist the Imperialism of the US/UK.

http://www.uuiraq.org/english/241.htm

[Wanted Man]

I'd take a realistic position on this. It would be optimal if nobody died, but if an Iraqi were to shoot an imperialist invader, I certainly wouldn't blame him(the Iraqi, that is). Sucks for the soldier, but that shit happens when you take part in an invasion. People don't like being invaded.

So PA's talk about how we should "support the troops", but by bringing them home rather than cheering the war, is baseless liberal crap. The fact is, it's not going to happen anytime soon. And while I can't judge every soldier individually, I'm certainly not going to shed tears when he is not welcomed back when he does finally return home from his fight for imperialism.

I will only "support the troops" when they join the resistance, or start fragging their officers. As long as they oppress the Iraqi people... well, the idea of someone getting beheaded or whatever doesn't make me comfortable, but I'm not going to cry when at the same time, 650,000 Iraqis have been butchered by the troops that PA "supports", and to many Iraqis, torture is a regular occurance.

[ern]

There is one common enemy for the workers, poor and dispossessed caugth up in the slaughter in Iraq, or Afghanistan: capitalism. Be it in its 'democratic', 'nationalist' or 'Islamic' forms. This is the internationalist position, as several posts have pointed out. To support the slaugther of American or British troops means explicit or implicit support for the resistance, as others have already said. It is the same sort of arguement that many on the so-called Left came out with at the time of 9/11: they deserved it. No: those killed in the Twin Towers, Iraq or Afghanistan did not and do not deserve it. For Communists the enemy is the capitalist system not individuals, otherwise communism is reduced to a question of hatred for capitalists, rather than the overcoming of the disortion, crushing and brutalisation of humanity by decaying capitalism. At no point has the revolutionary movement glorified in the slaugther of workers in uniform or those caugth up by the capitalist system. To glorify and support the killing of American or British troops not only means support for anoher bunch of gangsters, who use their own cannon fodder to carry out the kiliings, but also expresses a submission to the stirring up of the most base instincts by this dying system, and certainly has nothing to do with communism.
As for the argument that this support for the killing of troops is the same as the Bolshevik slogan of the defeat of one's own bourgeoisie it is wrong. At no point did the Bolsheviks, or those others on the Marxist Left who supported this slogan glorify the slaugther of their class brothers or call for the killing of thier class brothers. The foundation of their internationalism was the slogan of workers of the world unite. The practical expression of this was the couragous work that the Bolsheviks and others carried out in the different armies calling for fratenisation and the turning of the imperialist war into civil war. And during the revolution the Bolsheviks did all they could to avoid unnecessary blood shed. For example, faced with the attempted ractionary coup in August 1917, the Bolsheviks sent comrades to talk to the troops involved in this coup and won many of them over to the revolution.

[chimx]

Even Lenin was smart enough to realize that supporting Russian troops in an imperialist war was necessary for the social revolutions of 1917.

If the troops are not on your side, any revolution you propose will fail. period.

[The Bitter Hippy]

I have a friend about to go to iraq. I don't want him to die. Simple.

The concept of a class enemy is too simplistic. It implies that one is always a class enemy. Is a soldier on leave/off duty an enemy? Would you personally murder them? No.

The bolsheviks had the right attitude towards the army. They didn't just stand off from a distance and wait for them to revolt, they agitated. It got them some results.

Soldiers or police oficers, they are only class enemies when they are ranged against workers in the streets.

[RebelDog]

Originally posted by The Bitter [email protected] 20, 2006 08:48 pm
I have a friend about to go to iraq. I don't want him to die. Simple.

The concept of a class enemy is too simplistic. It implies that one is always a class enemy. Is a soldier on leave/off duty an enemy? Would you personally murder them? No.

The bolsheviks had the right attitude towards the army. They didn't just stand off from a distance and wait for them to revolt, they agitated. It got them some results.

Soldiers or police oficers, they are only class enemies when they are ranged against workers in the streets.
I don't want anyone to die in Iraq, who on these forums could say they do? But the fact remains that thousands of civillians, soldiers and police are dying because of a war unleashed by the US/UK capitalist class to brutally seize the resources of a sovereign state. Imagine if the tables were turned and Iraq (or any country) attacked and invaded the US (to seize texan oil) or the UK (to capture north sea oil rigs), would any of us care about who the soldiers were that were invading our countries? Had such a senario been reality the UK/US would have launched nuclear/chemical weapons against the invaders and their home cities without doubt. The US/UK are getting off lightly in Iraq when all is said and done. Did the French resistance care about the Wermacht soldiers they killed? The insurgents are being driven by what they see happening to Iraq people at the mercy of US/UK imperialism.

Its always the working class/poor that have to suffer whilst the elite sit at home in comfort and rake in the spoils. Soldiers are carrying out the plans of the ruling class in Iraq right now and the police at home are the lackeys of the state always poised to crush working class rebellions. Look back at the 1984 UK miners strike. That was class war and the army/police were willing participants on the ruling class side. Fuck them.

[American_Trotskyist]

I support the Iraqi resistance. Plain and simple. However, I also sympathize with the unfortunate sons and daughters in there (unlike many on the board who are fortunate sons and daughters who can have mommy and daddy pay for college or who don't live in poverty). We have people on this board who are calling poor working class people who have few options other than "joining" the military class traitors when they don't even belong to the working class!

Of course I don't support the imperialist war, nor would I support any war other than the class war. The simple fact is that there is a poverty draft in this country. Few if any "join" the military for patriot reasons, most, including many of my friends, joined because they either cannot find a job to support them and their families or can't find any conceivable way of paying 10-40 thousand dollars a year for college. There is a backdoor draft, the people who join are in need of money and just like anyone else they will try to find it anyway they can. The poor man always fights the rich man's war.

As for the atrocities committed against the Iraqi people by the military, they in excusable. However, once again things aren't as black and white. The insanity of war can turn good people into bad, not that that is an excuse, but it is an explanation of some of the attitudes of the soldiers.

So please think about who you are calling "class traitors" and at least sympathize with the poor and working people who join only because it is the only option besides working for 5.15 at a supermarket.

[YSR]

Originally posted by The Dissenter+November 20, 2006 04:07 pm--> (The Dissenter @ November 20, 2006 04:07 pm) I don't want anyone to die in Iraq, who on these forums could say they do? [/b]
This dumbshit:


tecumsah
I support the troops to be used as fertilizer in Iraq.

Someone else (I think it was MattyUK) pointed out how easy it is for people in middle class backgrounds to abstractly call for the death of the imperialist troops. Some of us grew up with people who are those imperialist troops, some of us are/were their friends. Calling for their deaths is insulting.

We can oppose their actions and the war, but we need to get them to realize why THEY need to oppose the war. As chimx said, without the soldiers on one's side, no revolutionary movement on a grande scale can succeed.

But seriously, fuck the officers.

[Anton]

yeah i feel sorry for the dying troops simply on a human basis. After all, as it has been said most of them are indeed working class folks.
And the truth is, when there is a fight between imperialist troops and religious fascists (this is more relevant to the Taliban in Afghanistan but also Iraq in many cases, it's impossible to support any of them)

[tecumseh]

Originally posted by Young Stupid Radical+November 21, 2006 12:39 am--> (Young Stupid Radical @ November 21, 2006 12:39 am)
Originally posted by The [email protected] 20, 2006 04:07 pm
I don't want anyone to die in Iraq, who on these forums could say they do?
This dumbshit:


tecumsah
I support the troops to be used as fertilizer in Iraq.

Someone else (I think it was MattyUK) pointed out how easy it is for people in middle class backgrounds to abstractly call for the death of the imperialist troops. Some of us grew up with people who are those imperialist troops, some of us are/were their friends. Calling for their deaths is insulting.

We can oppose their actions and the war, but we need to get them to realize why THEY need to oppose the war. As chimx said, without the soldiers on one's side, no revolutionary movement on a grande scale can succeed.

But seriously, fuck the officers. [/b]
I think this boils down to supremacy - and even though the people who take pains at defending the actions of invaders (because that is what they are) deep down inside know that this situation is not right, they'll still find ways of defending the actions of the US and the UK. Supremacy and feeling more righteous and more deserving than others is deeply ingrained in many - logic and reality be damned.

The invaders need to get out - NO EXCUSES - they're trespassing, their presence if fueling violence (in no way is their presence preventing strife, to believe that is pure delusion). They need to get out. The whole "oh, what will become of Iraq if we leave" is a bunch of bs, an excuse to prolong the occupation. Iraqi people were obviously never of concern to the US/UK - the only interest the occupiers have is of Iraqi oil.

[Sean]

The argument for "supporting the troops" by pulling them out to limit fatalities is the same shit that's always thrown to the supposed left to busy themselves with when wars fall foul of public support against them. Focusing the pull out arguement on a protective notion of military personnel is in my opinion just as big a distraction as the Iraq/Al Qaeda slight of hand trick that got people in there in the first place.

Supporting a pullout on this basis is basically the same as saying "No, don't rob, kill and torture those people; you might get hurt if they struggle."

If you're not supporting a withdrawl because it is fundamentally wrong and monstrous, you support the rape of the middle east, just not the tactics used.

I understand that these are sons, daughters and parents manipulated by government propaganda and fear mongering, and on that level I have sympathy. But understand that the whole arguement is merely a banner that another capitalist party would (and have done with some success in the US) seek to lead the masses around to the same ends by a different road.

[Guerrilla22]

We support the troops much more by calling for their withdrawl from Iraq, than those who proffess to support the troops, while at the same time are against a withdrawl.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by The Bitter [email protected] 20, 2006 04:48 pm
Soldiers or police oficers, they are only class enemies when they are ranged against workers in the streets.
No; they are ALWAYS the class enemies because the military and law enforcement are nothing more and nothing less than tools used by the bourgeoisie to enact their will, and oppression upon the people.

[Comrade Castro]

Not to mention that if they just wanted an education, they could join a noncombat branch as service in combat operations and theaters, as of now, is VOLUNTARY. They want to be imperial tools and murder innocents. I'll support them when they frag their commanders and join the revolution. Victory to the heroes of the Iraqi Resistance!

[cb9's_unity]

what the fuck are you people talking about with an iraqi resistance. as far as what i know about iraq theres no single group fighting against america. there all under small theocractic anti-semetic homophobe clericks. they staps bombs on grandmothers and send them out into crowds of inocents. i have the most anti-war anti-imperialist view on the war out of anyone i know but you people are fucking insane to be calling these bastards heroes.

now to our troops. (calming down a little) lets face the fact that most us/uk troops don't have a clue who there fighting for. most americans i can say have been brainwashed to think that our beliefs are good and everyone who dissagrees is a murderous tyrant. As far as they know all they are doing is protecting the people they know around them. so in that way we must support them because to the best of there knowledge they are supporting there class. If we could ever show them what they are really doing why would they not then support there class again. Considering that most american troops aren't going around shooting innocents (and when they do they are usually given justice) we cannot call for there deaths just because they don't understand that there government is corrupt and a tool of there enemies

[Lenin's Law]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2006 06:24 pm
Even Lenin was smart enough to realize that supporting Russian troops in an imperialist war was necessary for the social revolutions of 1917.

If the troops are not on your side, any revolution you propose will fail. period.
It is something when the anarchist makes more sense than many of the communists do. (j/k)

Chimx is completely correct on this point. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of how revolutions work, how they happen will realize that it is essntial to gain to your side, at least some portion of the bourgeois army. Every successful social revolution that one can think of has relied on doing this. If revolutionaries just ignored the troops or called for their deaths, to be used as "ferilizer" as some are calling for here, then the

Russian Revolution.
Cuban Revolution.
Chinese Revolution.

would never have happened.

Others say that "I will support the ones who disobey orders or desert" otherwise "to heck with them"

But this is like saying " I will only support the workers who are communists and openly revolutionary, if they aren't then they are reactionary and right wing and to heck with them!"

This is all nonsense. In reality, gaining a revolutionary consciousness does not happen magically, it does not happen by itself , it takes for most people the right materialist conditions, learning the right lessons and having access/being exposed to the right information. The last part is "our" job. The job of sincere revolutionaries that is.

It is our job, as Lenin and Trotsky understood almost 100 years ago, to actively work to convince all members of the working class, all proleteriat, including the ones in the military to embrace revolutionary struggle and see why it is in their best interests to do and to see why following their officers, the ruling class that sent them to die is not in their best interests. Will all troops respond to this message? No. Just as all workers will not either, but given the right material conditions and the right message, most will as it is truly representing their best interests.

The reality is that at least right now, most workers in the US and in Europe do not have an openly revolutionary position; as most troops do not have an openly revolutionary position. So what to do? The sectarian says we should only support those who are are revolutionary and communist! Only support the .01% of troops who desert and disobey orders! As for the other 99%? "Fuck them! Reactionaries! Use them as fertilizer! Hehe, that will surely make the ruling classes tremble! Fuck workers who aren't with us, they should know better anyway!"

Never mind that the overwhelming majority of workers currently "aren't with us" and won't be if comrades keep up with this sectarian nonsense. No matter how confused or disillusioned troops may get, as long as the "left" keeps up with this "fuck the troops! die troops die!" they will always come back to the bourgeoisie, why the hell would anyone join a revolution that is openly and enthusiastically calling for your death?

In other words, any opportunity we have or may have in the near-future of convincing disillusioned/confused troops from taking a revolutionary line is lost. The grip the ruling classes have on their working class troops is thus secure. When revolutionaries discard whole segments of the working class (the troops, their families, their friends, others connected to them) it is simply a wet dream for elites.

Being ultra-left and sectarian may be useful for message boards on the internet but not in helping to create a revolutionary situation, as studying the history of any successful revolution will show you.

[Fawkes]

My "Manifesto":
I DON'T support the U.S. government or military
I DON'T support the Sunni and Shiite extremist militias
I DO support all Iraqi resistance
I DO support the U.S. troops until the second that they fire their weapons

[SPK]

I mostly agree with chimx and LL on this question.

As revolutionaries, we cannot deal with soldiers in the imperialist armies in the purely moralistic and idealistic way that many people in this thread are proposing. Struggle and debate with members of the military – who are overwhelmingly from the working classes -- should not be ruled out of bounds simply because they are in the military; have fired their guns; have not rebelled against the brass and their officers; or have become “class traitors”; and so on. Why?

When a military victory seems within reach, the army of a capitalist state is more likely to do whatever it is told to do by the bosses and the brass. Progressive, revolutionary, and anti-imperialist political work must be done among soldiers and enlistees in such a situation, even though conditions may not yet be conducive to people broadly taking up or even understanding that kind of message. The concrete, everyday conditions are at that point not pressing enough for many in the armed forces to question their indoctrination or purpose in serving the capitalist state.

When the possibility for that victory, though, recedes into the distance or clearly becomes impossible, then demoralization, insubordination, and open rebellion becomes more likely. Organic, spontaneous resistance can begin to bubble up in the armed forces in that situation. The political work previously done by progressives, revolutionaries, and anti-imperialists can play a key role in triggering that opposition – the base, material conditions (continuous military setbacks) will certainly exist, but the subjective, conscious component developed through such political work is critical as well. Such work must continue, in order to strengthen opposition in the military and to further heighten enlistee’s political consciousness.

The achievements of national liberation forces, to take the examples of Vietnam or Iraq, are decisive in creating this new situation. Similarly, the achievements of revolutionary forces in other, more hypothetical contexts would be decisive – we can see this from historical revolutionary experiences (even though such struggles are clearly not prominent right now anywhere in the world). For example, the disintegration of the amerikan armed forces in Vietnam became most pronounced after the Tet offensive in 1968, which was a political victory for the south-Vietnamese National Liberation Front (NLF). The Black Panther Party in the usa in the sixties had many former military personnel who had been radicalized not only by the achievements of the NLF, but also by the political consciousness-raising campaigns of black nationalists and black revolutionaries. As another example, Portuguese soldiers -- drained after 15 years of fruitless attempts to suppress anti-colonial, liberation struggles in Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea-Bissau and having been exposed to revolutionary ideas by those struggles themselves – were a key force in the 1974 ouster of the Salazar / Caetano dictatorship, which had been in power for over 50 years, and in supporting the intensifying revolutionary situation there.

So, when conditions are fruitful, revolutionaries must be prepared to accept these soldiers from the imperialist armies (as distinct from the brass or officer caste). We cannot permanently reject people because of their political errors; we cannot put them on trial or throw them into prisons; we cannot damn them to hell for all eternity (although some on this thread would seem to want to do that). We are revolutionaries, and soldiers – some, not all, as LL has noted -- have always played a key role in making revolution.

We should not soft-pedal the just and correct actions of national liberation forces in places like Iraq. If amerikan soldiers in Iraq are killed during the occupation of the country, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and we should make that clear. But revolutionaries must simultaneously be willing to struggle and dialog with soldiers politically in order to advance our goals. History has shown that it is necessary and possible to do both things at the same time.

[mikelepore]

"Support the troops" is a meaningless phrase. Someone may or may not support an idea, a principle, a suggestion, a goal, but having "the troops" as the object noun makes it meaningless. Even if we assume that the phrase is a grammatically incorrect expression which means "support the ideas or principles which are held by the troops", it's still meaningless, because the troops are in the military for such diverse reasons as paying for education or acquiring job experience, and not because they have certain ideas or principles.

While I'm in the mood to challenge silly euphemisms, another irritating expression is "they died for our freedom", particularly when the same speaker recognizes that this or that particular war was preventable and unnecessary. Nonsense. If the war was preventable and unnecessary, then, by definition, they died for nothing. This is a tautology. But it has always been the political right that has tried to prohibit "politically incorrect" comments, despite their pretense that the pressure of "political correctness" arises from the left.

Mike Lepore - http://www.deleonism.org/

[kurt]

But this is like saying " I will only support the workers who are communists and openly revolutionary, if they aren't then they are reactionary and right wing and to heck with them!"

That's pretty unfair. There's a massive difference between not supporting apolitical (or non-communist) working-class people and not supporting working class people who have made a choice to massacre other members of the international proletariat.

If I express hostility towards my fellow employees at work because they aren't communists, then you would be right to criticize me. Why? Because they're not killing anyone!

On the other hand, proletariat in an imperialist army are class traitors. They are actively murdering the Iraqi (and other nation's) working class.


This is all nonsense. In reality, gaining a revolutionary consciousness does not happen magically, it does not happen by itself , it takes for most people the right materialist conditions, learning the right lessons and having access/being exposed to the right information. The last part is "our" job. The job of sincere revolutionaries that is.

No one is suggesting that you stop using your propaganda work as a tool to get the US imperialist soliders to desert.


The reality is that at least right now, most workers in the US and in Europe do not have an openly revolutionary position; as most troops do not have an openly revolutionary position. So what to do? The sectarian says we should only support those who are are revolutionary and communist! Only support the .01% of troops who desert and disobey orders! As for the other 99%? "Fuck them! Reactionaries! Use them as fertilizer! Hehe, that will surely make the ruling classes tremble! Fuck workers who aren't with us, they should know better anyway!"

I don't see anyone in this thread (it's possible that I missed it, but most are simply anti-solider, not working class) advocating that we don't support the working-class merely because they aren't revolutionary. What you've said is true; most of the working-class throughout the world do not have a revolutionary outlook as of now.

However, there's a fundamental difference between "most" working-class people, and imperialist soliders. "Most" working-class people aren't involved an imperialist occupation and systematic slaughter of other working-class people. Imperialist troops are.


There's nothing wrong with trying to get our message out to the troops, but there is something wrong with supporting our "troops" who kill the working-class as a job.

On this issue, I'll side with the Iraqi working-class over bloody class traitors any day! :angry:

[Sabocat]

Originally posted by Guns of [email protected] 19, 2006 07:27 pm
This is an imperialist war of occupaton. The empire has, by extreme brutal force, occupied another country. People in Iraq are resisting that force and they are dying and being tortured for it.

A revolutionary living in the belly of the empire, when it is engaged in wars of occupation and plunder, can only adopt a position of revolutionary defeatism. Any other position is a betrayal of the international proletariat and the people of the world.

Do you doubt that the working class in Iraq supports the "slaughter" of US troops? Do you doubt that the vast majority of the people of the world support the defeat of the US in Iraq? Why should the stand of people in the US be any different?

Of course the soldiers are working class. When have the capitalists not used the working class to fight their wars? The bourgeoisie has used their dominance of the ideological, political and economic superstructures members of the working class to fight their war. It chews the flesh of the working class and, as a reflection of its racist nature, especially it chews the flesh of oppressed minorities.

US troops have a choice. Their activity their is a form of education. The nature of the US occupation is clear. They are faced everyday with a first hand graphic challenge to all the lies they have been told about the nature of the war and the nature of the empire.

It's true that they are also immersed in a high-pressure situation with intense social and physical intimidation. They are in a difficult situation.

But, they have options. They can simply refuse to serve and face the consequences of being beaten, jailed and ridiculed. They can desert. They can turn their guns around and frag their officers. The can form revolutionary cells and forment sabotage and revolt.

I know these are difficult choices, but their path of least resistance is to be good soldiers of the empire, and, when they take that path, revolutionaries must unite with the people of the world in hoping they lose and celebrating their deaths
Well said. Couldn't agree more. Keep in mind that these "working class" soldiers are also used by the ruling class to suppress domestic discontent as well.

Remember, as these "working class soldiers" are signing up, in their oath they promise to "defend against all enemies....foreign and domestic.

Guess who those domestic enemies are?