[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Resistance See other Resistance Articles Title: An Asinine Proposition (Syria) If and when the United States government intervenes militarily in some way in Syria, there is no question that U.S. military personnel will take the lives and destroy the property of people that had never harmed an American or threatened the United States in any way. And most Americans won’t even care. Should military intervention occur, the following asinine proposition will be repeated ad nauseam just like a version of it has been repeated incessantly ever since U.S. troops invaded Iraq and Afghanistan: I don’t support the U.S. military intervening in Syria, but I support the troops. This is utter nonsense. This is pious drivel. This is idiocy on parade. This is lunacy. Yet, even though the majority of Americans say they don’t want war with Syria, the majority of them will still say we should support the troops, pray for the troops, and thank the troops for their service. Sometimes an attempt is made to justify this nonsense, drivel, idiocy, and lunacy by supplementing it with one or more of the following: •The troops are just following orders. •Old men make wars, but young men fight them. •The troops have a duty to serve the country when they are called upon. •Military intervention is the fault of the politicians, not the soldiers. •It is better to fight “over there” instead of “over here.” •Whatever the troops do in Syria is the fault of Obama the commander in chief. •The troops didn’t ask to go to Syria. •There are a lot of good people in the military. •The troops will go fight where they are told because they are patriotic. •The troops are not responsible for where they are sent. •Many soldiers had no choice but to join the military since they could not find a job. •U.S. soldiers only kill those who try to kill them. But none of these change anything; the proposition is still nonsense, drivel, idiocy, and lunacy. You can’t support the troops without supporting what they do; you can’t separate soldiers from soldiering. Reciting this asinine proposition about supporting the troops is just like saying: •I don’t support garbage men emptying the trash, but I support them as garbage men. •I don’t support doctors performing abortions, but I support them as doctors. •I don’t support landscapers mowing the grass, but I support them as landscapers. •I don’t support TSA agents groping passengers, but I support them as TSA agents. Sounds ridiculous, I know; but why doesn’t the asinine proposition about soldiers sound just as ridiculous? The primary job of a soldier is to destroy infrastructure and make widows and orphans—whenever he is told to do so and without questioning his orders. Perhaps killing people they shouldn’t kill and breaking things they shouldn’t break wasn’t always the top priority of U.S. soldiers, but it certainly is now. Since World War II, the U.S. military has been used exclusively for purposes other than the actual defense of the country. And if that weren’t bad enough, most of these purposes have been nefarious and offensive. Since World War II, U.S. soldiers have functioned exclusively as the president’s personal attack force staffed by mercenaries willing to obey his latest command to bomb, invade, occupy, and otherwise bring death and destruction to any country he deems necessary. When U.S. troops go to Syria, and people say that they support the troops but not their mission in Syria, what exactly will we supposed to think they mean? Will they be saying that they •support the troops painting equipment? Are any of these things reason why U.S. troops returning home from Syria will be applauded in airports? Then how is it that people can say they support the troops but not their mission? The ultimate reason why senseless U.S. foreign wars take place is not because of the president, the Congress, and the politicians; it is because there is no shortage of Americans willing to bomb, maim, destroy, and kill for the state in order to collect a government paycheck. And to the extent that patriotism has anything to do with it—cursed be that patriotism. I don’t support the troops. And I don’t support asinine propositions. Do you? Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||