Menu
What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Fuck the Troops

The Amazing Messenger

The Amazing Messenger

New member
Slogans such as 'support the troops' are meant to sound as positive and ambiguous as possible in order to provide those who send them into harm's way an effective weapon against any who disagree with military interventionism. Cutting off the funding of illegal invasions is equated to not caring if a nation's soldiers have the proper gear.

Genuinely supporting the troops would entail not sending them off to die in wars of conquest. This is much less glamorous than seeing jet fighters blaze across the sky with an American flag in the foreground to the song Rock You Like A Hurricane, and traveling to far away lands in search of monsters to slay, but that's life.

By accusing someone of not supporting the troops, when they are actually opposed to the war, it is possible to back critics into a defensive position. Following this comes a Pavlovian response in which the critic must do nothing less than extol the virtues and sacrifice of servicemen, and how they 'defend' the nation and so on.

Tangential to this is the nonsense that the soldiers of the United States are defending something other than the interests of the rich and influential, when the real guardian which protects the United States from an invasion or attack is its nuclear arsenal. The World Wars were not defensive wars for the US. Nor were Korea and Vietnam.

This isn't to say this poster harbors especial ill will towards anyone serving in Iraq or some other Viceroyalty of the US. However, why should I pray for their lives but not that of the Iraqis? One might sign up for military service out of want to serve in the defense of their country, or for financial incentives. But the notion that the sacrifice of those serving abroad, in this instance, makes them something other than the victims of terrible lies and manipulation, like the Iraqis, is silly. They are not 'heroes'.

I invite all of you to partake in this wonderful catharsis. The next time someone asks why you don't want to let the troops 'finish the mission,' tell them the troops can go fuck themselves. They'll never expect it!
 
You wouldn't remember Vietnam, but we had a similar dichotomy when I was a kid.
 
jack said:
You wouldn't remember Vietnam...
Click to expand...

bin215z.jpg
 
They say the whole "hippies spitting on returning Vietnam vets" thing was an urban legend, possibly concocted by our spooks in DC to discredit the peace movement. Someone did some years-long investigation and was never able to track down a single eyewitness to such an act (it was always "Oh yeah, I know someone who really saw it"), nor a vet who claimed to be a victim of it, nor someone who claimed to have done it.

I actually agree with Messy for the most part. The whole "I Support the Troops" thing came out during Gulf War I, and it was obviously a thinly-veiled way of saying "Yes, I think this war is an oil grab and 'liberating Kuwait' utter bullshit, but by god, I feel so awful about how we treated the 'Nam vets; so here, I'll put a yellow ribbon on my car and convince myself that it's not those poor boys' fault they were still enlisted when war broke out".

One of the ballsiest thing I ever saw was when, at my fairly conservative college located in a fairly conservative town where lots of people were in the military and every car & house were adorned in fluttering yellow bands, someone painted a sign on their rear bumper that read "YOUR RIBBONS ARE DRIPPING WITH BLOOD"
 
Supporting the troops is not the same as supporting the war. Something a pansy ass civillian pussy like yourself will never understand.

The Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines don't decide who to go to war with, or when or why.

They just do their fucking job.
 
The Amazing Messenger said:
Slogans such as 'support the troops' are meant to sound as positive and ambiguous as possible in order to provide those who send them into harm's way an effective weapon against any who disagree with military interventionism. Cutting off the funding of illegal invasions is equated to not caring if a nation's soldiers have the proper gear.

Genuinely supporting the troops would entail not sending them off to die in wars of conquest. This is much less glamorous than seeing jet fighters blaze across the sky with an American flag in the foreground to the song Rock You Like A Hurricane, and traveling to far away lands in search of monsters to slay, but that's life.

By accusing someone of not supporting the troops, when they are actually opposed to the war, it is possible to back critics into a defensive position. Following this comes a Pavlovian response in which the critic must do nothing less than extol the virtues and sacrifice of servicemen, and how they 'defend' the nation and so on.

Tangential to this is the nonsense that the soldiers of the United States are defending something other than the interests of the rich and influential, when the real guardian which protects the United States from an invasion or attack is its nuclear arsenal. The World Wars were not defensive wars for the US. Nor were Korea and Vietnam.

This isn't to say this poster harbors especial ill will towards anyone serving in Iraq or some other Viceroyalty of the US. However, why should I pray for their lives but not that of the Iraqis? One might sign up for military service out of want to serve in the defense of their country, or for financial incentives. But the notion that the sacrifice of those serving abroad, in this instance, makes them something other than the victims of terrible lies and manipulation, like the Iraqis, is silly. They are not 'heroes'.

I invite all of you to partake in this wonderful catharsis. The next time someone asks why you don't want to let the troops 'finish the mission,' tell them the troops can go fuck themselves. They'll never expect it!
Click to expand...

Let me guess..you were molested as a child right? :huh:
 
From a book I've been reading (emphasis mine):

"They're good kids, all of them, despite the self-conscious act. You see, this part, the part where they talk to the war reporter, they have a frame of reference for that. They understand it, they know what it's all about. So they're comfortable and funny in front of the camera, and they even find a way to be civil and friendly to the antiwar reporter, who despite it all is also a character they know.

But a few hours later we're visiting a police station in an unfriendly seciton of Baghdad, and somewhere nearby there's a huge explosion. None of the Iraqi police are going out to investigate, they're too scared. And these kids, who are supposed to be there directing the Iraqis, are sitting there in the station, with bombs going off nearby, and small-arms fire too, and they have no idea what the fuck is going on. They don't know why they're there and they don't know who it is who's blowing shit up a hundred yards away. They know what they know, and they don't know what they don't know, and what they don't know is turning out to be the important thing."
 
The Dork Lord said:
Supporting the troops is not the same as supporting the war. Something a pansy ass civillian pussy like yourself will never understand.

The Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines don't decide who to go to war with, or when or why.

They just do their fucking job.
Click to expand...
If you weren't frothing-at-the-mouth impatient in trying to insult me, you'd see that I was pointing that out.

As for being a pansy-ass civilian, it shouldn't make it more difficult to understand. I wouldn't go into the army for the meager financial benefits or out of a burst of patriotism following the 9/11 attacks - that's what poor and stupid people do, respectively. I'm still more valuable as a computer tech than a pawn meant to die on the front lines anyway.
 
I refused to even take my physical in 1972. I had a high draft number, and they ended the draft in june or july of that year anyway, but I was threatened with prison and a million other things, none of which changed the way I felt or acted.

I wouldn't serve then, and I wouldn't serve now. I was called unpatriotic, a traitor, a dirty hippie and subversive.

Wore them all proudly.

But I still have respect for those who serve and who have served, I just won't agree with their bullshit rhetoric when they try to justify why they went over there.
 
The Dork Lord said:
No, idiot. I'm saying there's a wide variety of jobs in the US Military, and not all of them involve getting shot at.
Click to expand...
So, fuckwit, you took a confrontational tone for no reason other than to poo-poo what I posted, about being more valuable than a pawn. If you don't know how to dispute it, stick to 'U R laem' posts.
 
I took a confrontational tone because you're an arrogant little prick. As far as disputing you goes: what's the point? You're ignorant by choice, and will likely remain so despite any evidence to the contrary of your limited perception.
 
Something an old acquaintance of mine just published. He's getting to be a pretty big deal these days.

(Don't mean to be coy, but I'd rather not name him at this time)
 
OK, a pretty good cross section of people in the military today are black, hispanic, and white. Most of the black men and women in the US military are from inner-cities and have the cultural mind like that of a pack of baboons. Most of them are educated to the 12th grade in a city school. Which is about the same as being schooled in somalia. They are lower-class, have almost no education outside of public school and no direction in life. Most of them thought that the military was an easy way to get money.

The hispanics are mostly from Puerto Rico and they're trying to gain their citizenship through the military. For those that don't know, it's far simpler to gain your green card by just joining the military than going through civillian routes. They don't speak much english. Most of them are fairly young and just trying to get a better position in life by becoming an American. I would have to say that their intelligence level is one notch higher than the blacks in the military.'

Now, on to the white guys. The white portion is broken down into a few categories: Rednecks; middle-class patriots; those with no direction in life (quite a bit of these are college grads); and A LOT of 18 - 22 year-olds looking to pay for college. The rednecks are there because, well, they're stupid. They wanted to go kill some sand niggers and then they joined the army. Middle-class patriots are the ones that messy described earlier as joining as a boost of patriotism following 9-11. Intelligent, to a degree and good soldiers. The ones without direction... the army loves these kind. They tell them that they'll give them a direction, a career that they can advance in, and a way to make enough money to retire early. All of that is a lie, by the way.

Now, I'm going to deal with the 18 - 22 year-old demographic as a side bar. These "kids" are of every race and creed. Most of them join so that they can get money for college. A lot of them are middle-to-lower class and don't have any money to get into a good school. I'd say that only 25% of these kids are actually intelligent, driven, and on a path to somewhere. The rest are the mediocre ones that sat next to you in math class cheating off your test. What they all have in common is that they were all duped by a recruiter and a sense of patriotism to join the military.

What needs to be distinguished is that not everyone in the military CHOSE to go overseas and fight in a war that was for an ulterior motive, and not for national defense. Therefore Messenger's argument has some validity. The troops aren't sacrificing anything to defend our nation. They're being used like pawns by the government. It has been the same since Korea. So, if you really want to support the troops, fight to bring them home immediately. Don't sit there while congressional committies appropriate more budget to sending most of these people overseas to fight what is not a fight for defense.

To make matters worse, we have a standing no assasinations policy regarding our intelligence personnel. If we could've just assasinated these leaders of terrorist organizations none of this would've happened.

Of course, at this point we're getting into conspiracy theory.

I do have to correct one misconception I read earlier. WW2 was indeed a war of defense for the united states. The war for our defense was only fought on one front. The Pacific battles between the US and Japan were a war of defense. They attacked our home soil and we defended ourselves. The whole Nazi thing was a preemptive defensive program to keep the Germans from doing what the Japanese did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top