" War, what is it good for? "....Edwin Starr.

[fr0d0]

But then again, they were just a bunch of dumb, naive, gullible bastards right?

By the job description, yes.

[bozo]

@bozo

Neither you nor I nor anyone else knows "why" US troops are fighting anywhere as individuals. " To free the people" is not a sentiment I ever heard from the several hundred Vietnam Vets with whom I served. ( I am NOT a vet) However, I think it's likely that at least some US soldiers are naive enough and gullible enough to believe that shit.

NATIONS never,ever, go to war on moral principle.Politicians use sentiments such as patriotism freedom and religion to con the poor dumb bastards who do the actual fighting and dying.


I think there is a common misconception of the US as the world's police. US interference in the affairs of other countries occurs only when it is perceived to be in the best interest of the US. That is what powerful nations do. The good news is that that kind of power is only temporary.

Padraic, we may disagree on much, but I endorse you on this.

---

That's nice. Let's just call Dotard and those like him "Dumb Bastards" and that should prove the point that politicos must 'con' their soldiers into going to war. Throw in a couple 'naive's and 'gullible's to emphasize the point.

Good move.

That's one opinion padraic, I just don't happen to share it. Nor did the 'several hundred' soldiers I did serve with.

But then again, they were just a bunch of dumb, naive, gullible bastards right?

I quote my favourite poet, Shelley ( himself quoting Godwin ) on the nature of soldiering:-

A soldier is a man whose business it is to kill those who never offended him, and who are the innocent martyrs of other mens' iniquities. Whatever may become of the abstract question of the justifiableness of war, it seems impossible that the soldier should not be a depraved and unnatural being.
To these more serious and momentous considerations it may be proper to add a recollection of the military character. Its first constituent is obedience: a soldier is, of all descriptions of men, the most completely a machine; yet his profession inevitably teaches him something of a dogmatism, swaggering, and self-consequence: he is like the puppet of a showman, who, at the very time he is made to strut and swell and display the most farcial airs, we perfectly know cannot assume the most insignificant gesture, advance either to the right or the left, but as he is moved by his exhibitor.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

But then again, they were just a bunch of dumb, naive, gullible bastards right?

Actually,to be fair, 'dumb' applied mainly most of the career officers. A lot of the grunts were quite bright.However,they tended to be conscripts,like me. I honestly believe soldiers are most definitely conned (lied to)when told the political reason(s) for wars.

If you want to be REALLY buried in bullshit, spend if 30 minutes with a recruiting sergeant. EG I wonder how many of them ever mentioned the practice of stop loss?


I'm sure there are idealistic young men and women ( as young men and women ofter are) who join the armed forces to fight for noble ideals. But yes,I honestly think such people are naive and gullible,if not actually stupid..



I'm truly sorry if I have offended you personally by the sincere expression of an honest opinion.




Thought for the day "A cynic is what an idealist calls a realist" (Sir Humphrey Appleby)

[Dotard]

No offense. Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

My opinion is Iraq and Afghan are noble causes. I have seen the suffering, well, the aftermath, the Saddam and Taliban regimes were inflicting upon it's people.

C'mon, with the Taliban there were people whacking the heads off of their fellow man over where they're gonna go after they whacked their heads off.

You really don't think they need bullets put into there skulls?

[dagda]

I was reading an intrestinf interview with an Afghan politition the other day. She was saying that things are just as bad now as they were under the Taliban, the only diffrence being that these butchers happened to be pro-American and the Taliban butchers were not.

[Pippy]

I've seen some interesting reports (of which I remain stoically skeptic, in character) about opiate production. Under Taliban rule the amount of world Opium (illegal, the rest is in Oz) was below 10%. That makes sense. Then the Americans came in, and said "We know what to do with this stuff" and Afghanistan produced and still produces something over 50 or 60% of the illegal opium.

It makes sense because of something I heard Immortal Technique say: Heroin is incompatible with Islam. He meant the same thing I am saying here.

And I maintain that although it is not nice when other countries have mean governments, America (and Britain, and Canada) should clean their own house before burning down other peoples. If the fact that there is bad stuff happening is justification for war, for overthrowing... Why aren't the soldiers in Darfur, or Haiti, or on a reservation in the Midwest, or in Chicago's slums?

I also maintain that this is just my opinions, and I hope to make no offense.

Thank you for listening,
-Pip

[Kyuuketsuki]

As far as I am concerned there is no greater sacrifice that can be made than to put oneself between one's family/friends/country/kin and danger. I believe that is the ultimate sacrifice and I believe that makes that person (particularly those who give their lives for others in that way) worthy of being regarded as heroic.

I haven't read this thread but if it goes the way I suppose these things usually go I think it is naive to suggest that war doesn't solve problems ... if we hadn't fought the Nazi's/Japanese I suspect the world would be a very, very different place today (not least in the suspicion that I would not be alive).

Kyu

[bozo]

As far as I am concerned there is no greater sacrifice that can be made than to put oneself between one's family/friends/country/kin and danger. I believe that is the ultimate sacrifice and I believe that makes that person (particularly those who give their lives for others in that way) worthy of being regarded as heroic.

I haven't read this thread but if it goes the way I suppose these things usually go I think it is naive to suggest that war doesn't solve problems ... if we hadn't fought the Nazi's/Japanese I suspect the world would be a very, very different place today (not least in the suspicion that I would not be alive).

Kyu

Oh dear Kyu, perhaps if you read the thread then we can debate. We're at loggerheads again, I fear.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Oh dear Kyu, perhaps if you read the thread then we can debate. We're at loggerheads again, I fear.

I can't be arsed but yeah, it doesn't surprise me ... you seem to typify everything I hate about unrealistic idealistic views.

Kyu

[bozo]

Oh dear Kyu, perhaps if you read the thread then we can debate. We're at loggerheads again, I fear.

I can't be arsed but yeah, it doesn't surprise me ... you seem to typify everything I hate about unrealistic idealistic views.

Kyu

I started this thread with the words of the late Harry Patch. Did he typify " unrealistic, idealistic views "?