ACCESS ALL AREAS

Fuck the troops!

23 May 2008 by Mike Gogulski
Posted in mind control, war | 155 Comments »

Back when I was a long-haired hippy freak with a hand-scrawled peace symbol on his jacket holding signs up in protest of Gulf War I, the Orlando peace activist organizer types would always enjoin us in preparing for rallies, protests or other events thus:

“Oppose the war; support the troops.”

The idea had a certain strategic logic to it. Our opinion was a minority one, and offending the millions with military members in their families or otherwise close to them didn’t seem like a terribly bright way of getting the peace message across. We also somewhat accepted the logic that the people in the military had signed up to defend America; that they were being sent to a criminal war for profit on the other side of the globe wasn’t really their fault, they’d been hoodwinked.

So, all of those well thought out banner ideas like “US Military: Millions of Murderers in Uniform” were left aside so that we might more effectively get the peace message across and avoid offending anyone’s precious sensibilities. We stuck instead to our peace signs and our rainbows and our doves and our “No blood for oil” lines. We endured the taunts from the counter-protests: “My country, right or wrong!” “America, love it or leave it!” “Traitors!” and so on. And we gingerly protested in our carefully cordoned-off free speech zones or under city permit permission, got ourselves in the papers and all cried together and lit candles as the radio reports started coming in of the missiles and bombs striking Baghdad. And, of course, none of it made a damned bit of difference.

credit: wardolino @ flickr.com

credit: wardolino @ flickr.com

It always bothered me, though, this “support the troops” idea. Sure, it was a smart strategic play, but in stark conflict to the rest of what we thought we were doing. We were here to bring the truth to an ignorant, deluded or sleeping public, and the whole truth, nothing but. That truth must have necessarily included the realization that these amorphous “troops” we were enjoined to support were actually individual, thinking, morally responsible men and women. It must have included the knowledge that each and every “troop” currently engaged in mass murder in our names had volunteered. And we knew, as they should have, that the murderous, destructive, obscene organization they volunteered to serve, hadn’t conducted a legitimate “defense of America” since at least WWII, and maybe as far back as the War of 1812, depending on whose Pearl Harbor narrative you believe.

They weren’t conscripted, they weren’t shanghaied, they weren’t tricked into signing up and donning the uniform and picking up the gun. They sought out the role, they agreed to follow orders, they signed the papers, and nowhere along the way did they somehow become transformed from individual human beings, morally responsible for their individual acts of violence and destruction into those collectively romanticized “troops”. Some small number said, “I didn’t sign up for this,” and did the only moral thing possible, which was to desert. The rest marched freely onto the planes and ships and deployed, the willing agents of empire. Certainly in many, the thought was there afterward: “We didn’t sign up for that,” but still they went, perhaps finding their own moral cover in the notion they’d been tricked. Likely, most found no moral problem with going at all.

Even today, the “support the troops” mentality is embedded in the tactics and rhetoric of the organized anti-war movement, implicitly or explicitly. It’s considered bad form to condemn the American armed services en masse for their self-subjugation to the American empire’s war machine.

another victim of empire

another victim of empire

Unlike Gulf War I, though, Gulf War II, freshly turned five years old, is an occupation. It is an obviously immoral war launched on the flimsiest of concocted excuses and conducted with the most sinister of aims. The history of Gulf War I, the suffering inflicted on Iraq by a decade of sanctions, the horror of depleted uranium weapons residues and unexploded landmines and other ordnance from the first attack should have made it obvious to anyone that a crime had been committed there. A massive, inexcusable, inhuman, monstrous, treasonous crime.

And yet, most of the military personnel that have served in the current conflict up to the present weren’t in the military for the first. They signed up, willingly. If they didn’t know the history of what the US military actually did for the prior fifty years, flag-waving nonsense and Cold War turned War on Terror hysteria aside, their foolishness should not excuse them. If they learned nothing from the lessons of Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Lebanon or other places that the empire had been sticking its nose and its guns into, well, we should let neither ignorance nor willful blindness be an excuse. Unjust, illegal wars do not just happen by themselves. They are the sum total of millions of individual decisions by millions of individually responsible people to obey, topped by whatever dark cabal is giving the orders for the week.

Further, probably close to half or more of those still in Iraq today signed up after the war’s justifications had evaporated, after the stories of casual murder, collective punishment and institutionalized torture were already splashed on television screens and across newspaper headlines worldwide. They, especially, should have known better.

So, I will not support the troops. In fact, fuck the troops! Each and every US serviceperson today who is not deserting, refusing to follow orders or turning their weapons on their commanders is, in fact, a criminal, and one for whom we should feel neither sympathy nor pity, let alone the specious solidarity of “support the troops” when it’s those same “troops” who are carrying out slaughter, destruction and torture in our name.

credit: wardolino @ flickr.com

credit: wardolino @ flickr.com

At the same time, fuck all those who support the troops! If history, recent or ancient, hasn’t been sufficient to educate you on the true nature of war and the true nature of the predatory, inhuman power you seem so eager to serve, then damn you for your stupidity, damn you for your ignorance, damn you for your blindness, damn you for your fallacious morality. And this goes not only for every family member or friend of someone serving in the US military today who is NOT insistently urging their child or husband or wife or friend to desert or disobey, it goes also for every federal employee and for every shareholder and employee from janitor to CEO of the military-industrial-terrorism complex and the companies that comprise it: Blackwater, Halliburton, Boeing, General Dynamics, Allied-Signal, Unisys, Westinghouse, DynCorp, Exxon, Hewlett-Packard, EDS, Computer Sciences Corporation, IBM, Hughes, KBR, Kearfott, Lockheed-Martin, McDonnell Douglas, Mitsubishi, Motorola, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Shell, AT&T, Sikorsky, United Technologies and all the rest. There is blood on your hands, real human blood — lives taken, families shattered, homes destroyed, crops ruined, populations displaced, tortures committed, atrocities sanctioned, all facilitated by your unthinking, odious, ignorant, unconscionable support.

This essay is in part a response to the writings of Arthur Silber, in a piece entitled “The Honor of Being Human: Why Do You Support?

credit: vredevanutrecht @ flickr

credit: vredevanutrecht @ flickr

In concluding, he states:

The Bush administration has announced to the world, and to all Americans, that this is what the United States now stands for: a vicious determination to dominate the world, criminal, genocidal wars of aggression, torture, and an increasingly brutal and brutalizing authoritarian state at home. That is what we stand for.

I repeat once more: these horrors are now what the United States stands for. Thus, for every adult American, the question is not, “Why do you obey?” but:

Why do you support?

Or will you refuse to give your support? Will you say, “No”? These are the paramount questions at this moment in history, and in the life of the United States. We all must answer them. Our honor, our humanity, and our souls lie in the balance.

No, Arthur, I will not support.

  1. 155 Responses to “Fuck the troops!”

  2. By Dano on 23 May 2008

    Yes. This will perhaps not count as a sound proof on strict terms of misesian praxeology to which I often stick to, but I refuse to believe it to be accidental, that the biggest dickheads (family included) I´ve ever met join either the army or police or both.

    So what narrative of Pearl Harbour do you believe Mike?

  3. By Nick on 24 May 2008

    Always felt the same way, never said it to anyone. I guess all of those bumper stickers got to my head.

    Keep up the good work.

  4. By Mike Gogulski on 24 May 2008

    I dunno what to believe, Dano… the questions surrounding the attack are summed up fairly well at Wikipedia.

    Let’s just say I wouldn’t be surprised at all to find one day that the “conspiracy theory” had been proven.

  5. By Rad Geek on 25 May 2008

    Mike:

    Each and every US serviceperson today who is not deserting, refusing to follow orders or turning their weapons on their commanders in, in fact, a criminal, and one for whom we should feel neither sympathy nor pity, let alone the specious solidarity of “support the troops” when it’s those same “troops” who are carrying out slaughter, destruction and torture in our name.

    While I absolutely agree with you about the bankruptcy of uncritical “support the troops” appeals, I think that the question of willingness and criminality are a bit more complicated than that.

    To the extent that soldiers willingly engage in deliberate violence against innocent people, they are certainly complicit in the crime and should be held accountable. But it’s not quite true that all soldiers in the U.S. military are “willing agents” or “volunteers” unless they “desert or disobey.” Everywhere else in the world besides the military, when someone willingly signs on for a job, they can always quit later if they have second thoughts about either the job in general, or about specific requirements imposed on them by their employers. But in the military these are treated as crimes, and can be punished by death if the government so chooses. Soldiers, even so-called “volunteers,” who want to leave the military, but are coerced into staying by the threat of imprisonment or death, should not be considered willing participants, any more than should victims of the draft.

    That’s not an excuse for soldiers who directly commit acts of violence against innocents; nothing can excuse that, even if you were drafted rather than “volunteering,” and you should be willing to face imprisonment or death before, say, gunning down a child or a family on patrol. (That’s true of conscripts no less than it’s true of “volunteers.”) But it does make the situation a lot less clear-cut a case of “willing agency” when it comes to, say, a payroll officer or a mechanic or a truck driver, who is coerced into playing some role in the war machine but is not directly committing violence.

    Now, that said, on the question of uncritical blanket “support the troops” messages, and moral responsibility, I agree with you, and it reminded me a lot of something really valuable that Utah Phillips said, at the time of the first Gulf War:

    I spend a lot of time these days going to demonstrations and vigils, talking to people who support the war. They can be pretty threatening. But I always find there are people there–and I don’t mean policemen, but there are people there who will protect you. I don’t go there to shout or to lecture, but to ask questions. Real questions. Questions I really need answers to.

    When I joined the Army, it was kind of like somebody that I had been brought up to respect, wearing a suit and a tie, and maybe a little older, in my neighborhood. Think about yourself in your neighborhood, and this happened to you. He walked up to me, put his arm around my shoulder, and said, See that fellow on the corner there? He’s really evil, and has got to be killed. Now, you trust me; you’ll go do it for me, won’t you? Now, the reasons are a little complicated; I won’t bother to explain, but you go and do it for me, will you?

    Well, if somebody did that to you in your neighborhood, you’d think it was foolish. You wouldn’t do it. Well, what makes it more reasonable to do it on the other side of the world? That’s one question.

    Well, now hook it into this. If I was to go down into the middle of your town, and bomb a house, and then shoot the people coming out in flames, the newspapers would say, Homicidal Maniac! The cops would come and they’d drag me away; they’d say You’re responsible for that! The judge’d say, You’re responsible for that; the jury’d say You’re responsible for that! and they would give me the hot squat or put me away for years and years and years, you see? But now exactly the same behavior, sanctioned by the State, could get me a medal and elected to Congress. Exactly the same behavior. I want the people I’m talking to to reconcile that contradiction for themselves, and for me.

    The third question–well I take that one a lot to peace people. There’s a lot of moral ambiguity going on around here, with the peace people who say, Well, we’ve got to support the troops, and then wear the yellow ribbon, and wrap themselves in the flag. They say, Well, we don’t want what happened to the Vietnam vets to happen to these vets when they come home–people getting spit on. Well, I think it’s terrible to spit on anybody. I think that’s a consummate act of violence. And it’s a terrible mistake, and I’m really sorry that happened. But what did happen? Song My happened; My Lai happened; the defoliation of a country happened; tons of pesticides happened; 30,000 MIAs in Vietnam happened. And it unhinged some people–made them real mad. And what really, really made them mad, was the denial of personal responsibility–saying, I was made to do it; I was told to do it; I was doing my duty; I was serving my country. Well, we’ve already talked about that.

    Now, it is morally ambiguous to wrap yourself in the flag and to wear those ribbons. And it borders on moral cowardice. I don’t mean to sound stern; well, yes I do, but what does the Nuremberg declaration say? There’s no superior order that can cancel your conscience. Nations will be judged by the standard of the individual. Look, the President makes choices. The Congress makes choices. The Chief of Staff makes choices. The officers make choices. All those choices percolate down to the individual trooper with his finger on the trigger. The individual private with his thumb on the button that drops the bomb. If that trigger doesn’t get pulled, if that button doesn’t get pushed, all those other choices vanish as if they never were. They’re meaningless. So what is the critical choice? What is the one we’ve got to think about and get to? And, friends, if that trigger gets pulled–if that button gets pushed, and that dropped bomb falls–and you say I support the troops, you’re an accomplice. I don’t want to be an accomplice; do you?

    And I don’t want to dehumanize anyone. I don’t want to take away anybody’s humanity. Humans are able to make moral decisions–moral, ethical decisions. What do we tell the trooper who pulls the trigger, or the soldier who turns the wheel that releases oil into the Persian Gulf, that they’re not responsible–just following orders, just doing their duty, have no choice–bypassing them, making them a part of the machine, we deny them their humanity, their responsibility for their actions and the consequences of those actions. Look, I’ve been a soldier. I don’t want any moral loophole. I need to take personal responsibility for my actions. And if we don’t learn how to do this, we’re going to keep on going to war again, and again, and again.

    Utah Phillips (1992): fromThe Violence Within, I’ve Got To Know

  6. By Mike Gogulski on 25 May 2008

    @Rad Geek:

    Fair enough, and you are right. There are degrees here, I think it goes without saying. The commander giving the order for slaughter is equally or more criminal than the soldiers who pull the trigger or drop the bombs. Those off the front lines do enable them, however, knowing full well what their labor is going to support. They share, therefore, in the blame, though perhaps to a lesser degree.

    In any case, digging deep into the narrow distinctions of who bears greater or lesser responsibility isn’t going to stop the slaughter and destruction. Perhaps those on the front lines aren’t subject to moralistic persuasion of my variety, but maybe those along the supply lines are, or maybe those working for the companies that make the atrocities possible might have their minds changed. If they all woke up one morning and saw the blood on their hands, the war(s) would be over pretty shortly.

    Thanks for the Utah Phillips piece, I haven’t read that in a long time.

  7. By Mike Gogulski on 26 May 2008

    Ok, that’s bizarre and saddening, he’s dead :( http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/05/24/18502006.php

  8. By Mike Gogulski on 27 May 2008

    This post was visited by someone in Virginia with some sort of “nanny” filter installed on their PC, such that even the URL presented to them was censored:

    http://www.nostate.com/77/*****-the-troops/

    Fortunately, I have a WordPress plugin that takes care of that.

  9. By Lee Warner on 30 May 2008

    Human beings are. War is.

    War is neither legal nor illegal, neither ethical nor unethical, neither moral nor immoral, neither logical nor illogical. It’s just (an admittedly complex) spontaneous reaction to external stimuli. Any attempt to impose philosophical, political, moral, or spiritual order on war is functionally meaningless.

    Every single living organism on this planet, from the simplest single-cell plants all the way up to complex vertebrate primates struggles against the environment and other organisms to survive. It’s in the DNA. Some struggle passively, others struggle actively, but all organisms either kill outright, or survive vicariously from the deaths of others.

    If it makes you feel better to establish ethical structures around you based upon how you feel about your pain, and the pain of others involved in the struggle, go ahead, that’s fine. If you want to call others criminals because they don’t meet your standards, that’s fine, too. Use words like blame, culpability, atrocity, murder, or even lable the whole thing a “massive, inexcusable, inhuman, monstrous, treasonous crime,” sure, go ahead on.

    You can even damn me, for all the good it will do.

    “If history, recent or ancient, hasn’t been sufficient to educate you on the true nature of war and the true nature of the predatory, inhuman power you seem so eager to serve, then damn you for your stupidity, damn you for your ignorance, damn you for your blindness, damn you for your fallacious morality.”

    Your grasp of the sweeping scope of human history seems to be a little weak. War is not an “inhuman power.” It is actually a quintessentially human power. Again, I assert that there is no useful definition of morality in relation to war. There is only victory or defeat.

    Ironically, the damage done by humans to each other in war is no more than the damage done to humans by the excesses of nature itself. Having lived through hurricane, tornado, earthquake, fire, flood, landslide, and war, I’ll take war every time. At least I can shoot back. I haven’t lived through tidal wave, famine, pestilence, or volcanic eruption yet, though, so maybe my education isn’t quite complete.

    Death and killing has never, and will never stop, either microscopically or macroscopically. We are all going to die anyway, some sooner, some later, some quietly, some in agony. The human race is not going to perpetually survive on this planet.

    As you have said: “There is blood on your hands, real human blood — lives taken, families shattered, homes destroyed, crops ruined, populations displaced, tortures committed, atrocities sanctioned, all facilitated by your unthinking, odious, ignorant, unconscionable support.”

    Yes, there is blood on my hands, both direct and vicarious. I’ve even enjoyed it on occasion. But my support for war, while it may be “odious and unconscionable,” is neither unthinking nor ignorant. It is born of a deep, pervasive, misanthropic hatred of other human beings who believe that harming me is a way to advance themselves. I rationalize the killing I have done very simply: Better them than me. Now they’re not sucking up my air.

    As the human population grows, and natural resources grow fewer, and the strains of civilization reach the breaking point, the atrocities of the 20th and 21st centuries will have only just begun.

    Won’t that just be SOME fun.

  10. By Kent McManigal on 30 May 2008

    Natural disasters do not choose to kill innocent people. Evil people do. “Evil” is that which causes harm to innocent people. The above poster seems to qualify.

  11. By Mike Gogulski on 30 May 2008

    Yeah I quit reading after “war is neither ethical nor unethical”.

    Perhaps Lee doesn’t understand an important distinction. If one group of people take up arms and start attacking and killing another group of people, it’s assault, battery, murder and riot. They’re each individually responsible for their crimes. Everyone who has had even the most basic moral education knows this.

    When people in clown suits do it, however, it’s “war” and becomes a collective phenomenon, largely absolved by cultural tradition from individual guilt.

    I look forward to an age when that collectivization and institutionalization of guilt becomes a moral impossibility by broad consensus. Might take a while, but it’s happened in the past… consider the flat-earth theory, slavery and the divine right of kings as simple examples.

  12. By Lee Warner on 31 May 2008

    Distinction noted. Caveat: Who determines which side of a conflict is evil? I only ask because this question has been debated for over 5000 years of recorded human history, and if you actually have a cogent answer, I’d love to hear it.

    It’s rarely as simple as “…one group of people take up arms and start attacking and killing another group of people, it’s assault, battery, murder and riot…”

    When combatants meet, singly, or in clown suits en masse, there are no “innocent” people. Attackers and counter-attackers are all equally guilty. I respect Kent’s intellect, usually, but calling me evil is not a valid debate point, even if it’s true. The point you missed, Kent, is that damage occurs. How it is caused is only of personal interest to the damaged. Your statement that: ““Evil” is that which causes harm to innocent people” is stunningly naive. According to Mike, there ARE NO innocent people. Since the history of mankind is one of virtually perpetual conflict, and each side always claims to be virtuous and the other evil, by this standard, every human being has harmed every other human being, and every human being is therefore evil.

    What is the point of such absolutism? How will such a viewpoint stimulate human cultures to stop the “collectivization and institutionalization of guilt?” How will war be stopped by labeling all humans evil? Churches have been doing that since their inception, and it hasn’t changed a thing.

    While political, scientific and social advancements in the areas you mention, “the flat-earth theory, slavery and the divine right of kings” are nice, they are not basic to human nature. Killing other organisms is basic to human nature. Call it evil, call it atrocity, call it nature or Darwinism, or anything else you want.

    The killing has never stopped.

    Yes, it’s painful. Sure it would be better if it didn’t occur. But it does, and always has.

    The great question is: What is to be done about it?

    You say “Fuck the Troops. They’re all guilty.”

    I say “Arm yourself to the teeth and kill first all those who try to kill you.”

    Neither viewpoint is meaningful in any way.

    Sorry to have offended you to the point that you could not read my last post. I may have been wrong when I assumed that your provocative posts heralded a vigorous intellect which enjoys challenges. If it is your desire, I will never visit your site again, and leave you in peace.

  13. By Lee Warner on 31 May 2008

    You know, Mr. Gogulski, on second thought, I WILL leave you in peace. Anyone who stops reading controversial remarks, as you claim to have done, has the intellectual heft of a ten-year-old girl reacting to a dead mouse.

    Ewww. Icky.

    How weak.

    Your last comment under your ‘clown-suit’ post would have been exquisitely satirical had you the wit to actually utililze satire. “Moderation is off. Let your hatred flow. Give in to the dark side.” And then, as soon as the “dark side” got three sentences into it, you stopped reading. What a raw, powerful sapience is yours. You must be so proud.

    My hope was that you were a strong, determined man of intelligence, profound thought, rigorous logic, needle-sharp debating prowess, a detailed reading of history, able to discern syllogism from tautology, and fallacy from fact. I had hoped for philosophy, principle, and new, indelible ideas. In other words, a really smart guy, a guy who could tear me up, break me down, and make me think new thoughts, and do it in a fiery, dramatic, eloquent, inspiring, and dynamic way. I hoped all this because I enjoy having my preconceptions torn apart, my belief systems challenged, my facts debated, and my premises argued. But it appears that on your site, all those things are foreign concepts. So, instead, I got nothing. Not a single one of my points was even addressed, much less rebutted. The sole response consisted of nothing but shallow propaganda, unsupported opinion, arbitrary belief systems presented as truth, and ad hominem. And not even the common courtesy of addressing me in the first person. In fact, the only worthwhile quotes and images on your entire site are the works of others. Imagine my disappointment.

    If you have the strength of character to carry out your stated intention to become stateless, when you are legally and finally stateless, truly free, uncommitted, and unencumbered, you will then discover how truly alone you really are. You will find that all the clannish, parochial, suspicious human beings around you will assign you a role in their society to THEIR liking, regardless of your preferences. In most places, “outsider” is a pejorative. Good luck, and look out.

    Yours is apparently just another sophmoric site in the Internet Waste Land. Please feel free to delete all my comments, lose my name and email address, and blithely continue with your emasculated, impotent,
    and empty life. I wish you well.

    Good-bye.

    Lee Warner, RN, AASN, EMC, USN (Ret.)
    Lakeview, AR

  14. By Kent McManigal on 31 May 2008

    In any conflict, there is the aggressor and the victim. One on one. War is one murder at a time; one act of initiated force at a time.

    Everyone is guilty of something at some time, but I am speaking of one instant, not of a lifetime. In that instant, there is an innocent person and there is someone committing an evil act.

    If a person has admittedly enjoyed committing acts of aggression, which you seemed to be saying you have, Lee, then in that instant you were acting in an evil manner. You condemned yourself there, I was only pointing out your admission.

    You have the power to realize that you were wrong to initiate force and to try to make it right if possible; to repudiate your past actions and commit to never do those things again, and to never “cheer on” those who do those aggressive acts.

  15. By Mike Gogulski on 31 May 2008

    Dear Lee:

    To be sure, I did read your post. “War is neither ethical nor unethical” was the point at which it became incoherent.

    You go on to write “Arm yourself to the teeth and kill first all those who try to kill you,” which I agree with wholeheartedly. How on earth, though, does the principle of the moral acceptability of the use of violence in self-defense apply to what the empire you serve is doing in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, and has done in so many other places for the last six decades?

    Perhaps I read too much into your thoughts, but you seem to be pointing to the long-standing human tradition of mass murder as a reason to continue it, and even celebrate it.

    But when I find such other gems of virtue in your writing as “I rationalize the killing I have done very simply: Better them than me,” no, frankly, I don’t feel a great need to debate someone who stands for evil. Let your praise of death stand to be judged by others.

  16. By Lee Warner on 31 May 2008

    I have always found that Good and Evil are extremely subjective and difficult subjects to wrap one’s head around if one has any capacity for rational thought at all. Most non-thinkers settle for Us vs Them, and let it go at that. The guilt I bear is my own, and always will be, but I refuse to rationalize it away, and I refuse to shade my vision from the grim and ghastly reality that is human history and existence.

    Thank you for your responses, Mike and Kent. I am fascinated, and wish this discussion could continue, but it doesn’t appear that either of you care to do so, especially Mike, since your last sentence seems to indicate that you have no further wish to continue this thread. Is that correct?

    If so, God go with you, and may you find the peace you seek.

    Lee Warner

  17. By Jethro on 4 June 2008

    Just a few questions before I make my point. So how many of you that are condemning my brothers and I have actually done any time in the service? How many of you have been on humanitarian missions to the less fortunate parts of the world? Who here has face anything worse than a long line at Starbucks waiting for your soy latte? Anyone? I have proudly served beside some of the most honorable men and women that the world will ever see. Some are not with us anymore. I have never seen any innocent lives lost. Yes their are horror stories, the media will cover these in a heart beat. However, where were the reporters when my unit was passing out food and toys to the many villages that were in the vicinity of our base? Nowhere to be found. You will not here the good side of anything on the evening news. Bad news sells. I have never harmed anyone in your name, as you put it, I do not fight for you. I fight for the men and women on my left and right. You have the right to say whatever you feel. But I ask you to not say anything that you wouldn’t say to my face behind my back. That is what we call weak sauce. I have seen alot of weak sauce here. Enjoy your freedom, one day you may have to look toward someone like me to defend it. I am not refering to Iraq, so don’t try to warp my words. One last question, how many made it past my first question?

    I am a soldier by the way, something I am proud to be. FYI… I joined before all this went down, and I will still never desert. I am a man.

  18. By Mike Gogulski on 4 June 2008

    Dear Jethro:

    I have never “done time” in the military, as you put it, nor been dispatched as a tool of empire in the guise of humanitarianism, nor considered for even a moment something as ridiculous as a soy latte.

    Who knows what you’re up to in your USSOUTHCOM-directed manifest-destiny “humanitarianism”? Who knows what type of “honor” it is to stand beside a man who chooses “killer” as his email address? What you define as “freedom” I see as an unconscionable perversion of the word.

    Be assured, though, I’ll be happy to say anything said here to you directly, the veiled threat notwithstanding.

  19. By JOR on 5 June 2008

    “The commander giving the order for slaughter is equally or more criminal than the soldiers who pull the trigger or drop the bombs.”

    That seems exactly backwards. Committing murder yourself is worse than telling someone else to commit murder, even if, in certain contexts (ordering a military subordinate to murder, hiring a hit-man, etc.) telling someone else to commit murder is properly a capital offense.

  20. By JOR on 5 June 2008

    Lee, if you’re an amoralist, then you can give no reason for me or anyone else to support you. As I see it, you are at war with people like me (who just want to be left alone). By your own standards, there is nothing ethical or unethical about this; there is only kill or be killed. So I by your standards I must commit myself to doing whatever I have to to get you and those like you (clown suit gangsters) killed.

    That’s almost enough to make me support overseas imperialist wars. Sad for the poor sandniggers, but better they have to deal with you shitsack welfare suckers than I have to.

    For the war, against the troops!

  21. By Lee Warner on 6 June 2008

    JOR:

    You’re a deep thinker, I see. Let’s see if I can respond to your point, and ignore the racist obscenities, sarcasm, and strawman argument.

    “if you’re an amoralist, then you can give no reason for me or anyone else to support you.”

    I’m not an “amoralist.” In my first post I stated my opinion that: “Any attempt to impose philosophical, political, moral, or spiritual order on war is functionally meaningless.” The operational word is FUNCTIONALLY. The chaos of war precludes order. I believe that war is inevitable because war is the natural state of human relations. History doesn’t show me any different.

    People either fight, or they don’t. They may run away or stand on the sidelines and protest, but only the fighters actually accomplish anything. The accomplishments may be good or evil according your your own arbitrary standards, but non-combatants don’t affect the conduct of war. They suffer, they die, but they don’t do anything to shorten war or ameliorate it’s damage.

    And although I don’t recall asking for support, thanks anyway.

    “As I see it, you are at war with people like me…”

    You must have missed my first post, where I stated: “But my support for war, while it may be “odious and unconscionable,” is neither unthinking nor ignorant. It is born of a deep, pervasive, misanthropic hatred of other human beings who believe that harming me is a way to advance themselves.”

    Pretty much what you said, only far more perspicuous.

    I’m not at war with anyone right now. If you see war around you right now, deal with it at your own risk. I have no stake in your social problems or attendant personality disorders.

    “(who just want to be left alone).”

    People who just want to be left alone are legion. The problem is that war doesn’t leave people alone. Billions of human beings over the eons have suffered and died because war engulfed them despite their desire to be left alone. Good luck with that. I hope you live in a nice, safe neighborhood.

    “…by your standards I must commit myself to doing whatever I have to to get you and those like you (clown suit gangsters) killed.”

    Forgive me if I don’t take your statement as a manifesto of superior moral commitment. You appear to be fixated on what you see as MY standards without postulating any principles, philosophy, ideas, or actions of your own. Intellectually yours is an extremely weak position, so I’m going to guess that I don’t have to worry about you joining the Marines and showing up at my door to deal with me “by my own standards,” do I?

    Enough fisking. Let me ask you the same question I asked Mike G. and Kent Mc., but to which I never received acknowlegment, much less an answer. From my 2nd post: “Who determines which side of a conflict is evil? I only ask because this question has been debated for over 5000 years of recorded human history, and if you actually have a cogent answer, I’d love to hear it.”

    And JOR, try to limit your responses to rational, logical, and courteous statements. Things like that go a long way with impressing people with your intelligence.

  22. By Kent McManigal on 6 June 2008

    Lee: “Let me ask you the same question I asked Mike G. and Kent Mc., but to which I never received acknowlegment, much less an answer. From my 2nd post: ‘Who determines which side of a conflict is evil? I only ask because this question has been debated for over 5000 years of recorded human history, and if you actually have a cogent answer, I’d love to hear it.’”

    I thought I did give you my answer (pardon me if I am mistaken): the one who “starts it” (initiates force) is the one who is committing the evil act. The one defending his life or property is doing nothing wrong. “Evil” is not a mysterious, spiritual force, but an action or behavior.

  23. By Lee Warner on 7 June 2008

    I’m sorry, Kent, I misunderstood your answer.

    My question was more of a philosophical one, in that someone involved in an incipient or active conflict has to reason through the structure of principles and standards of the moral, legal, ethical, and spiritual values of his culture before deciding which side of the conflict is “good,” or justified, and which is the “evil,” or unjustified side.

    Your answer is valid for your principles and standards. It is deeply unfortunate that the rest of the world doesn’t share them.

    The conflict between the concepts of “just war” and “unjust war” has been going on since before the Code of Hammurabi. It is only in recent times that individual citizens have even had a choice as to whether they would consent to fight or not. In history, the decision whether the war was good or evil was left to the shaman, headman, king, the gods, or whatever the culture demanded. No one else had a say.

    Now, in the USA, we have a say, for however long that lasts.

    I believe that your standard is too simple, because Man is too complex to be pigeonholed so neatly. Many people agree with you, such as Mike Gogulski, who believes that I “stand for evil,” apparently because I do not condemn all war as evil.

  24. By MMMark on 8 June 2008

    Sun. 08/06/08 14:57 EDT
    Lee Warner wrote, on May 30, 2008:
    But my support for war, while it may be “odious and unconscionable,” is neither unthinking nor ignorant.

    The same could be said about one’s opposition to war. What is telling is that you have chosen to support war, while others have chosen to oppose it.

    Lee Warner wrote, on May 30, 2008:
    It is born of a deep, pervasive, misanthropic hatred of other human beings who believe that harming me is a way to advance themselves.

    That would include war mongers, if you are consistent.

    Lee Warner wrote, on May 30, 2008:
    I rationalize the killing I have done very simply: Better them than me.

    If you’d chosen to oppose war instead of supporting it, you wouldn’t have to “rationalize the killing (you) have done” in the first place.

  25. By MMMark on 9 June 2008

    Sun. 08/06/08 23:37 EDT

    Lee Warner wrote, on May 30, 2008:
    Every single living organism on this planet, from the simplest single-cell plants all the way up to complex vertebrate primates struggles against the environment and other organisms to survive…all organisms either kill outright, or survive vicariously from the deaths of others

    You make no distinction between killing to survive, and waging war. You seem to assume that humans wage war “to survive”, equating it with “single-cell plants all the way up to complex vertebrate primates struggl(ing) against the environment and other organisms to survive”. I certainly challenge this assumption. You also seem to assume that the waging of war has nothing to do with human choice, as evidenced by your assertion that

    Lee Warner wrote, on May 30, 2008:
    (War is) just (an admittedly complex) spontaneous reaction to external stimuli.

    I certainly challenge that assumption as well.

    No human need wage war “to survive”.
    War, or the rejection of it, is a human choice.

  26. By Lee Warner on 9 June 2008

    MMMark-

    “The same could be said about one’s opposition to war. What is telling is that you have chosen to support war, while others have chosen to oppose it.”

    “Telling” in what way? Be specific.

    “That would include war mongers, if you are consistent.”

    A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. (from “Self-Reliance” by Ralph Waldo Emerson)
    All living organisms, from single-cell plants to complex vertebrate primates are “war mongers.” Everything fights for life. Except, I guess, you.

    “If you’d chosen to oppose war instead of supporting it, you wouldn’t have to “rationalize the killing (you) have done” in the first place.”

    If I chose to oppose war, I would just as well oppose the wind and tides. It is man’s nature to make war, and always has been. History’s not one of your interests, is it?

  27. By MMMark on 9 June 2008

    Mon. 08/06/08 13:34 EDT

    Lee Warner wrote, on on Jun 9, 2008:
    “Telling” in what way? Be specific.
    In choosing to support war, you choose membership in the very group of humans you profess “a deep, pervasive, misanthropic hatred” of: those “other human beings who believe that harming me is a way to advance themselves.” Perhaps, what is “deep and pervasive” is not hatred, but self-hatred, and fear of everyone else.

    Lee Warner wrote, on on Jun 9, 2008:
    A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.
    This is merely a confession of your contempt for consistency, or at least an admission of your inconsistency. When confronted with the inconsistency of your position, you defend your position by slandering consistency, instead of rethinking your position.

    So much for
    Lee Warner wrote, on on Jun 9, 2008:
    “I enjoy having my preconceptions torn apart, my belief systems challenged, my facts debated, and my premises argued.”

    You are not interesting in pursuing the truth, you are interested in winning. Or perhaps for you, the two are one and the same. You seem to corroborate this with your assertion that

    Lee Warner wrote, on May 30, 2008:
    There is only victory or defeat.

    As for misinterpreting Emerson’s message, I direct you to this essay:

    A Wise Consistency

    If you read far enough, you’ll eventually reach the conclusion, which begins with these lines:

    “Emerson’s real attack was on intellectual conformity without a willingness to entertain new ideas based on newly acquired facts. This is what he referred to as the foolish consistency.”

    Lee Warner wrote, on on Jun 9, 2008:
    All living organisms, from single-cell plants to complex vertebrate primates are “war mongers.” Everything fights for life.

    Ah…before, all organisms “struggle to survive”, and now all organisms “fight for life”.

    This is sly. First you make a true statement: “all organisms struggle to survive.” Then, through a subtle semantic segue, it becomes “all organisms fight for life.” The “struggle to survive”, which is now a “fight for life”, transforms “all living organisms” into “war mongers”, since “fighting for life” is now equated with “waging war”.

    Lee Warner wrote, on on Jun 9, 2008:

    Except, I guess, you.

    That “guess” would have to be predicated on your assumption that I’m not a living organism, since, as you said earlier, “all living organisms fight to survive”. But then, consistency’s “not one of your interests, is it”? Absurdities aside, I would say I “struggle to survive”, I wouldn’t say I “fight for life”, and I would say “I don’t wage war”.

    Lee Warner wrote, on on Jun 9, 2008:
    If I chose to oppose war, I would just as well oppose the wind and tides. It is man’s nature to make war, and always has been.

    You post here because you choose to; you support (or oppose) war because you choose to. You deny these facts because you choose to. You can deny, ignore, and perpetrate fallacies ad infinitum, but you cannot escape (as much as you might like to) the fact, and the responsibility, that you choose. You have chosen to murder other humans without your survival having depended on that choice, and you have chosen to make us all complicit by claiming “It is man’s nature to make war, and always has been.” The blood, however, is entirely on your hands, and on your conscience.

    Lee Warner wrote, on on Jun 9, 2008:
    History’s not one of your interests, is it?
    Well, it depends. For example, I found the suppressed history of the GI movement to end the war in Vietnam interesting.

  28. By MMMark on 9 June 2008

    Mon. 08/06/09 14:42 EDT

    My response, despite being posted twice, fails to appear.

  29. By Mike Gogulski on 9 June 2008

    Sorry bout that, I just bumped the “number of links before comment gets held for moderation” threshold up from 4 to 10.

  30. By MMMark on 10 June 2008

    Mon. 08/06/09 19:12 EDT

    corrections:
    MMMark wrote, on on Jun 9, 2008:
    You are not interesting in pursuing the truth, you are interested in winning.

    should be:

    “You are not interested in pursuing the truth, you are interested in winning.”

    Also, “Mon. 08/06/08 13:34 EDT” should be
    “Mon. 08/06/09 13:34 EDT”.

  31. By Kent McManigal on 10 June 2008

    Good job MMMark!

  32. By MMMark on 10 June 2008

    Tues. 08/06/10 13:37 EDT

    Jethro wrote, on Jun 4, 2008:
    I am a soldier by the way, something I am proud to be.

    That pride is what keeps you a soldier, and prevents you from seeing my point of view. You must be utterly convinced of the righteousness of what you do, otherwise you could not continue to do it.

    Jethro wrote, on Jun 4, 2008:
    I will still never desert. I am a man

    Jethro, if you become convinced that what you are doing is wrong and decide to desert, you will still be a man. You won’t cease being a man until you die, which hopefully won’t occur prematurely.

  33. By MMMark on 10 June 2008

    Tues. 08/06/10 15:29 EDT

    Lee Warner wrote, on May 31, 2008:
    Who determines which side of a conflict is evil?

    This question seems premised on two assumptions, both of which I question:

    1. That there is such a thing as “evil”, and
    2. that there is some universally recognized authority who “determines” such things.

    I don’t think there is such a “thing” as evil. Evil is just a defamatory label we slap on behavior that we strongly disapprove of. To think of it as some “thing” that exists outside of the mind of the moral judge is to commit the error of reification (treating an abstract as a concrete). During war, each side defines itself as “good” and its opponent as “evil”, of course, but there is certainly no universal agreement, because neither side will ever admit to having initiated the conflict.

    So I think these concepts of “good” and “evil” don’t further our understanding, because they are neither designed nor employed for that purpose. As an operational approach, instead of asking “Who determines which side of a conflict is evil?”, it makes much more sense to ask “Which side of a conflict initiated physical violence?” By “much more sense” I mean: we stand a much better chance of answering this question, and obtaining a higher rate of agreement, than we do the original one.

  34. By Lee Warner on 13 June 2008

    MMMark

    Whew! That’s a lot to think about.

    First of all, let’s get a few assumptions and suppositions out of the way.

    First of all, I believe that the correct definition of “murder” is the “unlawful taking of human life.” I accept that I am subject to that law.

    You wrote: “That “guess” would have to be predicated on your assumption that I’m not a living organism,”

    No, sorry, the assumption was not that you aren’t living, the assumption was that you refuse to fight. I have no problem with that.

    “Perhaps, what is “deep and pervasive” is not hatred, but self-hatred, and fear of everyone else.”

    Or perhaps not. This comment is unnecessary ad hominem. I do not hold you in contempt for holding opinions different from mine. I respect your positions, even as I disagree with some of them.

    You wrote: You make no distinction between killing to survive, and waging war. You seem to assume that humans wage war “to survive”, equating it with “single-cell plants all the way up to complex vertebrate primates struggl(ing) against the environment and other organisms to survive”. I certainly challenge this assumption.

    I accept your challenge as valid. My view is that there is no significant difference between struggling to survive, fighting for life, killing to survive, and waging war. This is just my opinion, based upon my experiences. I do not say that it is “true.” I understand and accept that many people reject all violence, not only against humans, but against all animals. Some call themselves vegans, some are Unitarians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Quakers or other religious people. I’m not one of them. I accept their right to act as they see fit. They don’t usually offer me the same courtesy.

    You wrote: You also seem to assume that the waging of war has nothing to do with human choice, as evidenced by your assertion that

    Lee Warner wrote, on May 30, 2008:
    (War is) just (an admittedly complex) spontaneous reaction to external stimuli.

    I certainly challenge that assumption as well.”

    That challenge is valid as well. I believe that very, very few people actually make a conscious, deliberate choice when it comes to fighting, whether for individual survival, or larger community survival through a war. Your assertion that war is a “choice” may be most correct at leadership levels, but for millions of others, there is no choice offered. Most choices to serve or not serve in the military are made for other reasons, and when actually in conflict, choices are limited, almost always, between survival and death. Many people believe that people who choose to serve in the military, or as police officers, are making immoral choices to voluntarily engage in unjustified violence against their fellow man. I don’t believe that. In my experience, very little of my time in the military involved violence, and some of it involved humanitarian aid. Nothing is in perfect black-and-white.

    I submit that my beliefs do not mean that I am sly, self-deceiving, in denial, or perpetrating fallacies. Be nice.

    You wrote: “No human need wage war “to survive”.
    War, or the rejection of it, is a human choice.”

    I reject the first statement, and accept the second. Many millions of human beings throughout history have had no choice. Rejection of war is nice, but no guarantee that you won’t be engulfed in one in violation of your choice.

    You wrote: “You have chosen to murder other humans without your survival having depended on that choice, and you have chosen to make us all complicit by claiming “It is man’s nature to make war, and always has been.” The blood, however, is entirely on your hands, and on your conscience.”

    I accept the blood on my hands and my conscience, as I always have. I claim that my survival WAS at stake, and that I was legally and morally justified in my actions. Since I have not been imprisoned, and my conscience isn’t tormenting me, I assume that I was, de facto as well as de jure, justified. Remember, murder is the UNLAWFUL taking of human life.

    I have no power to “make you complicit” in anything.

    You wrote: “You are not interested in pursuing the truth, you are interested in winning.” Again, an unnecessary ad hominem. You don’t know me, and I have refrained from any personal remarks about you and your character. I would add, though, that if I had not won, I would not be here to pursue the truth.

    In any event, is not “truth” just as subjective and subject to interpretation as good and evil?

    Which brings us to your last post. I may surprise you when I tell you that I agree almost entirely with your take on good/evil, all the way up to your last two sentences.

    “Which side of the conflict initiated physical violence?”

    This is far too simple a question for such a subject. It deals with only a single facet of human interrelations that are so insanely Byzantine in their complexity that no one person, no bureau, no agency, and no government has yet unraveled it.

    We’ve tried. We’ve set up headmen and shamans, wise women and prophets, gods and emperors, churches and courts, parliaments and congresses, and still have not managed to prevent war. That is why I believe that my opinion that war in the natural state of human relations is historically correct. You object to my characterization on moral grounds, and you too are correct. For you. Again, I’m perfectly willing to let you live however you like.

    Is initiation of violence the only criteria? Is interference in trade routes an act of violence? How about disputes about the utilization of natural resources? How about those people who claim that ANY interference in their plans is an act of war? How about governments who claim to fight for public good by declaring “War on Communism, War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Crime,” etc. ad nauseum?

    Yours has been the most intellectually rigorous and stimulating challenge I have ever received. If you could just avoid the temptation to make derogatory assumptions about others character during debate, you’d be a real powerhouse for your cause.

    Respectfully,

    Lee Warner

  35. By Mike Gogulski on 13 June 2008

    Lee,

    You write: I believe that the correct definition of “murder” is the “unlawful taking of human life.” I accept that I am subject to that law.

    Pardon me if I’m making an unfounded assumption here, but when you say “unlawful” I assume that you are referring to the laws of one government or the other.

    There are those of us who would use a much different definition. Some would base the question on the received law of religion (“thou shalt not kill”, etc.), some would base it on an analysis of the rightful place of self-defense, and still others would classify a killing as lawful versus unlawful as MMMark and I do.

    From this basic moral question, the paths we take diverge dramatically.

    I am not a pacifist. There are any number of situations in which I would kill without reservation or remorse. But, should I ever face that awful decision, I would do so according to a higher law than that written down by priests or legislators.

  36. By Lee Warner on 13 June 2008

    Well, why didn’t you take this tack in the first place? Here you raise intelligent philosophical, legal, and moral questions without resorting to insulting someone who may or may not disagree with you. This is much better.

    I may even overlook the unworthy schoolyard insults you posted elsewhere on your site. That stuff really destroys your credibility.

    …when you say “unlawful” I assume that you are referring to the laws of one government or the other.

    Yes, you are correct. I’m only referring to a legalistic definition created by people in a legislative sense. This, however is the practical use of the the concept, because, as you know only too well, governments are by nature based upon force and coercion, and they can use their definitions to deprive me of property, liberty, and life.

    There are those of us who would use a much different definition.

    Yes, but as a matter of pragmatism, none of the other definitions or standards can deprive me of property, liberty, and life. Their value is purely symbolic, as they are not based upon force or coercion.

    …some would base it on an analysis of the rightful place of self-defense…

    This is usually included in legislative treatment of the subject of homicide. Some governments are much more restrictive than others, some much less.

    Some people will cry murder when a relative is killed, even if the circumstances, both legal and moral, point to self-defense, which is, in my opinion, one of the principle reasons that the law was defined the way it is used today. Fewer blood feuds that way.

    still others would classify a killing as lawful versus unlawful as MMMark and I do.

    From this basic moral question, the paths we take diverge dramatically.

    I am not a pacifist. There are any number of situations in which I would kill without reservation or remorse. But, should I ever face that awful decision, I would do so according to a higher law than that written down by priests or legislators.

    Okay, here is where I’m confused. If I read you correctly, you don’t necessarily accept the definition of murder as defined by legislature, religion, or “analysis of the rightful place of self-defense,” but you aren’t making clear exactly what your philosophical standard, legal principle, and definition is. If it’s not too legalistic of me, could I ask you to explain what YOUR higher law is, and how it would apply to me, or any other non-participant in your belief system?

    In the Muslim world, the law is what the Sheik, Caliph, or Imam says it is. It tends to vary, notwithstanding the Koran or Sharia Law. I wouldn’t want that for me, and I hope that isn’t what you are talking about.

  37. By Dana on 14 June 2008

    Rad Geek:

    To the extent that soldiers willingly engage in deliberate violence against innocent people, they are certainly complicit in the crime and should be held accountable. But it’s not quite true that all soldiers in the U.S. military are “willing agents” or “volunteers” unless they “desert or disobey.” Everywhere else in the world besides the military, when someone willingly signs on for a job, they can always quit later if they have second thoughts about either the job in general, or about specific requirements imposed on them by their employers. But in the military these are treated as crimes, and can be punished by death if the government so chooses.

    That’s nice. It still doesn’t refute the idea that these people chose to join the military in the first place. I am ex-Army. Nobody pointed a gun at me to make me sign up. I did anyway. Of course, I was in between the two Gulf wars, too–I’ve never been complicit in anything like the tragedy over there now, and as of the year 2000 I’m not even in the inactive reserves. And anyone who asks my opinion about whether they should sign up is going to get an earful in the negative.

  38. By Mike Gogulski on 16 June 2008

    Lee,

    I’ve made my followup to this discussion into a new article here.

  39. By MMMark on 16 June 2008

    Sun. 08/06/15 19:14 EDT

    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 13, 2008:
    I believe that the correct definition of “murder” is the “unlawful taking of human life.”

    This is like saying “the correct definition of theft is the unlawful taking of property”, or “the correct definition of adultery is unlawful sexual relations”. Who decides when the “taking of human life” is “unlawful”, and how is one to know in advance? Your definition of “murder” is merely the substitution with another undefined word: “unlawful”. Clearly, what is “unlawful” is derived, not arbitrarily, but from some fundamental principle. I suggest that this principle is the Non-Aggression Principle.

    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 13, 2008:
    No, sorry, the assumption was not that you aren’t living, the assumption was that you refuse to fight.

    Then you contradict yourself, for now you simultaneously assume that I “refuse to fight”, while (previously) claiming “all living organisms [b]must[/b] fight…” What this amounts to is simultaneously assuming that I do choose (the first case) and that I do not choose (the second case). Please decide. If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice. To recapitulate: I would say I “struggle to survive”, I wouldn’t say I “fight for life”, and I would say “I don’t wage war”.

    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 13, 2008:
    My view is that there is no significant difference between struggling to survive, fighting for life, killing to survive, and waging war.

    If you became convinced that the differences are significant, would you oppose war, or at least withdraw your support of it?

    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 13, 2008:
    I understand and accept that many people reject all violence, not only against humans, but against all animals. … I’m not one of them.

    Neither am I. I don’t reject “all” violence; I reject initiatory violence, and accept retaliatory violence. I reject murderous violence but support defensive violence.

    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 13, 2008:
    This comment is unnecessary ad hominem.
    It is not ad hominem, nor was it even gratuitous. It follows from what you originally told us about yourself: that you harbor “a deep, pervasive, misanthropic hatred of other human beings who believe that harming me is a way to advance themselves.” You admit that you hate the very people whose group you choose membership in, therefore, you must also hate yourself. Furthermore, why do you find my conjecture that you “fear … everyone else” slanderous? You wouldn’t charge slander if I suggested that your support for war “is born of a deep, pervasive, misanthropic hatred of other human beings who believe that harming me is a way to advance themselves”, since you’ve already said that yourself. Changing “hatred” to “fear” does not turn a valid statement into a slanderous one, nor does/could it invalidate your ideas, so I reject the charge of ad hominem with respect to this statement as well.

    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 13, 2008:
    I do not hold you in contempt for holding opinions different from mine.

    Unless, or course, my opinion is that “harming you is a way to advance (myself)”; then, you not only hold me in contempt, but harbor a “deep, pervasive, misanthropic hatred” of me. I find your protestation disingenous.

    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 13, 2008:
    I believe that very, very few people actually make a conscious, deliberate choice when it comes to fighting, whether for individual survival, or larger community survival through a war.

    I think I understand what you say in this paragraph: That frequently, young men choose to enlist, not to intentionally commit murder, but believing they will serve in the name of freedom, justice, defense, etc. Then, at some point, they find themselves in a “kill or be killed” situation. Well, of course. An eighteen-year-old man is physically strong but intellectually and experiencially weak, relatively, and may not understand what he is getting into . He is what the war mongers, those more Machiavellian amongst us, consider perfect cannon fodder. “The Unknown Soldier”, as Jim Morrison put it.

    Milton Mayer, in his book They Thought They Were Free, writes:
    “When men who understand what is happening–the motion, that is, of history, not the reports of single events or developments–when such men do not object or protest, men who do not understand cannot be expected to.”

    The “men who understand” fall into two groups

    1. Those who attempt to mislead those who don’t understand
    2. Those who attempt to educate those who don’t understand

    I choose to be one of the latter.

    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 13, 2008:
    I submit that my beliefs do not mean that I am sly, self-deceiving, in denial, or perpetrating fallacies.

    Nor did I suggest any of this. What I called “sly” was your derivation of the false statement “All living organisms… are “war mongers” from the true statement “Every single living organism …struggles against the environment and other organisms to survive”. Calling it “sly” means I attribute intentionality – a deliberate attempt on your part to use language strategically – to what you did. I could also attribute it to sloppiness or carelessness, but I gave your intelligence the benefit of the doubt: I called what you did, not “sloppy” or “careless”, but “sly”.

    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 13, 2008:
    Be nice.

    A well-phrased insult aimed at a deserving target can be extremely satisfying and entertaining. If I resort to this, it won’t be ad hominem; it will be an honest insult.

    You mistakenly portray my technique as ad hominem, which prevents you from understanding what I am trying to say. I don’t know any other way of saying it except by repeating it, this time even more carefully:

    Three different things:
    1. struggling to survive
    2. fighting for life
    3. waging war

    “Struggling to survive” means attempting to overcome anything that adversely affects one’s survival. This may or may not include predatory attack, and applies to “all living organisms”.

    “Fighting for life” is a sub-set of the above. Used literally and not metaphorically, it means physical life-or-death combat, either initiated (coercive case), for survival or non-survival reasons, or in self-defense (non-coercive case), and applies to only those organisms capabable of physical combat.

    “Waging war” is a sub-set of the above. It is the coercive case, for non-survival reasons, initiated by government on a massive scale.

    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 13, 2008:
    Rejection of war is nice, but no guarantee that you won’t be engulfed in one in violation of your choice.

    Of course. There are no guarantees. What we do is make choices that we think improve the possibility of moving in a desirable direction, ideally even reaching a destination. I believe that avoiding any involvement with the military and educating myself and others as to the role deception, and especially deceptive language, plays in human interaction, is my best personal strategy regarding my values and ideals.

    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 13, 2008:
    I have no power to “make you complicit” in anything.

    You are correct, and I regret my poor wording of that statement. What I should have said was “You have chosen to murder other humans without your survival having depended on that choice, and you have chosen to implicate all men by claiming “It is man’s nature to make war, and always has been.”

    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 13, 2008:
    You wrote: “You are not interested in pursuing the truth, you are interested in winning.” Again, an unnecessary ad hominem.

    This is incorrect. The essence of ad hominem is the implication that the (in)validity of a man’s ideas can be ascertained by the (un)desirabity of some ascribed personal quality. By ascribing to you the personal quality of being “interested in winning”, I do not (and indeed, cannot) imply that your ideas are invalid for the simple reason that “interest in winning”, although a personal quality, is neither desirable nor undesirable – one might even argue that it tends to be desirable. In either case, as ad hominem, this utterly fails…but this is rather trivial.

    What’s more important is to understand what I said, and consider the context. By telling us “I enjoy having my preconceptions torn apart, my belief systems challenged, my facts debated, and my premises argued”, you portray yourself as someone who engages in discussion for the purpose of pursuing the truth, even if that means “losing” (following the argument whereever it may lead, in the Socratic tradition), but this seems inconsistent with other things you write, such as There is only victory or defeat, or A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds when I demonstrate the inconsistency of one of your statements. You demonstrate to me that your interest, not in war, but in discussion, is “winning”, i.e., defending, not challenging, your beliefs.

    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 13, 2008:
    In any event, is not “truth” just as subjective and subject to interpretation as good and evil?

    Not necessarily. If, for example, someone has committed murder without being caught, the “truth” of the matter is objective but hidden (or at least, not manifest). Being “interested in the truth” does not mean that one will always find “it”, nor does it mean that “it” even objectively exists. What it does mean is that one embraces certain means and methods of enquiry, and rejects others. One allows the process to be the guide and teacher.

    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 13, 2008:
    That is why I believe that my opinion that war in the natural state of human relations is historically correct. You object to my characterization on moral grounds…

    My objection to your claim that “war (is) the natural state of human relations” is not “on moral grounds”. I object because I think the statement is either nonsense, or so widely interpretable as to be practically meaningless. Furthermore, I reject your invocation of historicism (a theory that history is determined by immutable laws and not by human agency), and offer myself and countless other war-resisters/rejecters as refutation.


    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 13, 2008:
    Again, I’m perfectly willing to let you live however you like.

    My credo includes the disclaimer “provided you don’t initiate physical violence against me”.

    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 13, 2008:
    Is initiation of violence the only criteria?

    I think so. It’s simple, workable, and seems “just” to me. I can’t think of a “better” criteria. Can you?

    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 13, 2008:
    Is interference in trade routes an act of violence?

    I’m not interested in what is or is not an act of violence; I’m interested in what is or is not an act of coercion (= the initiation of physical force or violence). If the “interference in trade routes” involves any coercion, then I condemn that interference.

    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 13, 2008:
    How about disputes about the utilization of natural resources?

    Who owns the natural resource, is that ownership legitimate (not based on coercion), and what bundle of rights does the property title entail?

    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 13, 2008:
    How about those people who claim that ANY interference in their plans is an act of war?

    If that “interference” involves any coercion, then I condemn that interference and support the right of the violated party to retaliate with physical violence.

    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 13, 2008:
    How about governments who claim to fight for public good by declaring “War on Communism, War on Poverty, War on Drugs, War on Crime,” etc. ad nauseum?

    Since all those wars involve coercion, I condemn them. Inasmuch as all things government does is coercion, I condemn all government. As to governments “who claim to fight for public good”, I am instructed by H.L. Mencken, who said “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”.

  40. By MMMark on 16 June 2008

    Sun. 08/06/15 19:26 EDT

    28 links in my last, long-assed response to Lee Warner, hence, it failed to post.

  41. By Mike Gogulski on 16 June 2008

    MMMark: posted! Absolved! Limits increased!

  42. By Lee Warner on 16 June 2008

    You’re an extraordinarily deep thinker. I may have to revise some of my opinions.

    Your definition of “murder” is merely the substitution with another undefined word: “unlawful”.

    The word “unlawful” is undefined? I don’t know what to say. Every law book on the planet has this word all over the place.

    Clearly, what is “unlawful” is derived, not arbitrarily, but from some fundamental principle. I suggest that this principle is the Non-Aggression Principle.

    Of course the concept of “unlawful” is derived. It’s derived from thousands of years of codifications of law. The principle of Non-Aggression, along with many other fundamental principles, is codified in law, but what I was talking about was the use of the word “murder” outside of the standard we use in our legal system here, today. For example, a devout Buddhist, who believes that my killing a rat is murder, cannot have me arrested and prosecuted for murdering the rat, because his principle is not codified in law.

    Then you contradict yourself…please decide…

    Look, the original quote: “Except, I guess, you.” was intended as humor. Humor is permitted to be contradictory. I will attempt to clarify any further attempts at wit. In any event, your view of life is clearly different from mine. I view all life in the earth’s environment as struggling against nature and other lifeforms to survive. Some individuals live, some die, some species prosper, some go extinct. Viewed on a planet-wide scale, you and I, both as individuals and as a species, adapt to our immediate environments as best we can, and I see no significant difference (again, on a planetary scale) between struggling to survive, fighting for life, killing to survive, and waging war. I can see your point, but you are using a much tighter focus than I am. For example, I know that there are people in this world who go through their entire lives with no challenges to their survival at all, fully adapted to their surroundings, and they never fight, make war, or even struggle to survive. But on an evolutionary scale, humans fight for survival against nature and each other all the time. Maybe our disagreement is simply one of scale.

    If you became convinced that the differences are significant, would you oppose war, or at least withdraw your support of it?

    I do not give blanket support for all war. I rejected the rationale for the wars in Panama, Bosnia/Serbia, Gulf War I, and the Falkland Islands. I knew that none of them bore much justification for US involvment, and American support of the British in the Falklands directly violated the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. I regard war as inevitable, because I don’t see human beings shedding their primitive behavior patterns anytime soon. Of course, I could be wrong.

    I reject initiatory violence, and accept retaliatory violence.

    Well, so do I, in many cases, but I wouldn’t want to get caught. In most places the law comes down hard on retaliation. You know what I mean.

    …You admit that you hate the very people whose group you choose membership in…

    There are so many assumptions here.
    It does NOT follow that what is “deep and pervasive” is not hatred, but self-hatred, and fear of everyone else. That is an unwarranted assumption on your part, with no basis in your personal or professional knowledge of me or anything I have written here. I took that supposition as an accusation of cowardice, although I don’t know that you meant it that way.

    Changing “hatred” to “fear” does not turn a valid statement into a slanderous one…

    I believe it does. Hatred and fear are two very different emotions, and the accusation of either provokes very different responses, at least in me. (See above.)

    I do not admit hating the military or myself, and I can find no basis in my own writing to support your assertion. At the risk of being accused of ad hominem myself, this sounds like bad pop psychology. I don’t understand where any of those assertions came from.

    Can we agree that in future discussions, we won’t try to psychoanalyze each other?

    I find your protestation disingenous.

    Don’t. I hold no one in contempt for their opinions. Only their actions.

    That frequently, young men choose to enlist, not to intentionally commit murder, but believing they will serve in the name of freedom, justice, defense, etc.

    I’ve read Mayer’s book, and your assessment of the situation is fair and accurate, with the possible exception of the word “war-monger.” Too loosely used to define too broad a category in order to provoke an emotional response. I think it’s trite, banal, and overused. War-mongers include military officers, legislators & other politicians, intelligence agents, manufacturers, financiers, lawyers, and all sorts of other people who have a vested reason to support any given war. To me, “war-monger” has the same flavor as “running-dog capitalist.” Just my opinion.

    What I called “sly” was your derivation of the false statement…

    Well, I appreciate your cautiously giving my intelligence the benefit of the doubt, but maybe you should have called it sloppy. I don’t like the word “war-monger,” so I lumped the word in with all other forms of struggle to devalue it. It may not have been appropriate, but I’m not immune to childish impulses.

    You mistakenly portray my technique…

    I accept your definitions of “struggling to survive,” “fighting for life,” and “waging war.” I do understand them. Again, I suspect that my problem is one of scale. After watching army ants marching through a jungle eating everything in sight, it’s hard not to make comparisons with human behavior. What the insects and their victims do looks so much like all three categories lumped together, and so much like what humans do to each other, that the connections appear on the surface to be valid. I reluctantly agree with you that they may not be, at least in the broad sense that I stated them.

    You are not interested in pursuing the truth, you are interested in winning.” Again, an unnecessary ad hominem.

    I didn’t object to being charged with being interested in winning, I objected to being accused of being “not interested in pursuing the truth.” I’m not sure what I said to provoke that statement. However, I accept your assurance that it was not ad hominem. I hope that I have demonstrated to you that I have an open mind, and don’t have a problem with losing my argument to your better argument. And I accept the charge, and plead mea culpa to being inconsistent occasionally. We don’t need to engage in anymore discussion of character traits, do we?

    Being “interested in the truth” does not mean that one will always find “it”, nor does it mean that “it” even objectively exists. What it does mean is that one embraces certain means and methods of enquiry, and rejects others. One allows the process to be the guide and teacher.

    Damn. That is so eloquent as to be nearly poetic. I wish I’d said that. And that, my friend, is sincere admiration. I really can’t add anything to it.

    I reject your invocation of historicism…

    You know, I actually didn’t realize that “historicism” was what I was doing. I may have been creating a fallacious argument without knowing it. I don’t think my view of history is complete nonsense, but I’m going to have to go back and think about my preconceptions and see if historicism is infecting my thought process.

    I can’t think of a “better” criteria. Can you?

    The problem, historically, is one of perception. Wars have started without the initiation of violence by the party actually responsible for starting the war. I’m thinking of the Boer Wars, where England “started” the war economically and politically, but it was the South African Boer farmers who fired the first shot. Same sort of scenario during the Boxer Rebellion in British-controlled China. That’s why I maintain that initiation of violence is actually too simple a criteria to use on a macropolitical scale. I could be wrong, of course, but human relations are extremely complex, and there are exceptions to every rule, especially the simple ones. Violence is sometimes a necessary first response.

    I accept your principle that “coercion as the initiation of physical force or violence” is a valid subject for condemnation, resistance, and, at last resort, violence. I just think you define it more narrowly than it’s practically used, such as economic coercion, like boycotts and strikes, or even non-violent criminal coercion, like blackmail.

    Thank you, MMMark.
    I’ve enjoyed this discussion very much so far. You have my respect and admiration for your clarity of thought and intellectual integrity.

    Lee Warner

  43. By Zach on 17 June 2008

    While I agree with most of your points, I think it’s important to understand why these troops kill in our name. Massive numbers of Chicanos and Blacks feel like they have no other option to feed their families and survive as Bush’s terrorist activities destroy our economy, except to join the military which is all-too-happy to accept them. Look at the record numbers of soldiers who, despite numerous physical problems, are sent off overseas anyway. Fewer and fewer college grads join the military, although I do know some that have. No one joins the military these days, unless they have no other choice, sadly.

    But of course…what is the price that people pay to become murderers, like you say? Some people would rather starve than become our criminal administration’s tool. Hats off to them. But at the same time…I’m not sure if I’m willing to immediately write off the people who have no other option for employment but the military. Which is exactly how the government likes it.

  44. By Lee Warner on 18 June 2008

    Zach, with all due respect, you are quoting from leftist dogma, which is dominated by Bush Derangement Syndrome. I am totally disinterested in doctrine, dogma, ritual, propaganda, or any other form of shallow non-thinking, except as an interesting anthropological aberration, sort of like a fascination with a turtle possessed of two heads.

    I think it’s important to understand why these troops kill in our name.

    I’m sorry, but if you have never been a clown-suited murderer, as Mike G. calls us military guys, you have no idea why soldiers kill. I didn’t kill because I was poor, disenfranchised, stupid, Chicano, or Black. I killed because I believed that killing would save my life, and the lives of my buddies, and that in killing, I would be achieving my assigned objective, so I would be accorded honor from those whose honors I sought. Honor was important to us, more so than human enemy lives. Many still feel that way, others have second thoughts years later.

    …and survive as Bush’s terrorist activities destroy our economy…

    You have a lot of reading to catch up on, Zach.

    Bush is only the latest military leader in history. All of them, in all countries, in all centuries and historical periods, ALL leaders are skilled liars and manipulators. In the mass manipulation of huge populations, leaders have always relied upon the poor and uneducated to fill the bulk of the billets in their martial forces, by lying to them about pride, honor, and the depth of the evil in the enemy culture. Sometimes, they actually told the truth, but only in the service of their overall propaganda theme.

    About the only exception to this that I can think of is the series of Mongol invasions, when the entire Mongolian nation, men, women, and children, uprooted themselves and attacked and destroyed everything to the south and west, with the whole nation acting as a unit. Pretty much unprecedented in human history, with the possible exception of some wars in African oral traditions.

    Some people would rather starve than become our criminal administration’s tool.

    I suspect that this hyperbole, not a witness statement, unless you can name two starvation victims whom you watched die refusing to accept government manipulation.

    …what is the price that people pay to become murderers…

    Ideologically, you can call it murder or anything else you want. It means nothing, because the word “murder” is codified in law as “the unlawful taking of human life.” If you have read all the previous posts, you know my opinion. Only codified law can be used by government to forcibly deny me my property, liberty, and life. Ideologies are symbolic only, and have no power, until they are accepted by enough people to become law.
    So, the fact that I have killed men means I have committed homicide, but not murder. The results of my actions in the form of the price I had to pay is solely between me and my conscience, not the State. My employer specifically exempted me from retribution, and gave me medals instead of prosecution and incarceration. Pragmatically speaking, it’s not murder.

    I’m not sure if I’m willing to immediately write off the people who have no other option for employment but the military. Which is exactly how the government likes it.

    That’s charitable of you. I’m not sure that there are ANY people who have NO other employment options but the military. I could see your point if you claimed that many volunteers have no BETTER options than the military.

    I recommend you read the rest of this site. The owner, Mike Gogulski, is a principled believer in the ideology if Non-Aggression. He called what I did “murder” and rejects my rationales, defenses, and excuses. He is privileged to do this, in my opinion, because he lives in a relatively safe world, where there are no State Secret Police to roust him out of bed, throw his ass on a bus, ship him off to bootcamp and force him at the point of an officer’s pistol to learn to kill for the State. At this point, he is a relatively free man, and so are you.

    And I will kill to keep it that way.

    It’s important to maintain a sense of balance. While you are renouncing, denouncing, rejecting, and protesting the genuine, revealed evil that all governments do, try to remember the evil that YOUR government DOESN’T do to you right now. Try to work to keep it that way, and even make it more free.

    Damn, I’m a long-winded sumbitch.

  45. By MMMark on 18 June 2008

    Wed. 08/06/18 01:11 EDT

    corrections:
    MMMark wrote, on Jun 16, 2008:

    by the (un)desirabity

    should be:
    by the (un)desirability

    MMMark wrote, on Jun 16, 2008:
    I can’t think of a “better” criteria
    should be:
    I can’t think of a “better” criterion

    MMMark wrote, on Jun 16, 2008:
    Inasmuch as all things government does is coercion, I condemn all government
    ough…horrible. Should be:
    Inasmuch as all government activity involves coercion, I condemn all government

    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 16, 2008:

    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 16, 2008:

    The word “unlawful” is undefined? I don’t know what to say. Every law book on the planet has this word all over the place.

    Which is different than saying “Every law book on the planet contains a definition of this word”. Obviously, “unlawful” is “that which is prohibited”, but without a generating principle, the law would be arbitrary, not derived. One could never know in advance what was “unlawful” unless one had memorized the entire collection of laws. As a simple example, it may be unlawful to execute a U-turn at a red light, but why? Because it violates the underlying principle, which is: You may not enter the intersection against a red light. Knowing this principle allows one to predetermine what is and is not “unlawful”.

    What is “lawful” isn’t necessarily “good”, and what is “unlawful” isn’t necessarily “bad”. For example, one can sniff glue all day long and justify such behavior by claiming “It’s not unlawful”. He’s right, but he’s also a fool, for he is engaging in behavior that does not help, but hinders his “struggle to survive”. By the same token, we are fools when we allow our governments to engage in behavior that endangers our survival. War mongering, empire building, and military aggression destroy all the good things we’ve been trying to build for so many generations, just as sniffing glue destroys a perfectly good body.

    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 16, 2008:
    what I was talking about was the use of the word “murder” outside of the standard we use in our legal system here, today.

    and yet:

    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 13, 2008:

    I believe that the correct definition of “murder” is the “unlawful taking of human life.”

    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 09, 2008:
    Everything fights for life. Except, I guess, you.
    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 16, 2008:
    Look, the original quote: “Except, I guess, you.” was intended as humor.

    I know that, but you also intended it to sarcastically underscore the universality of “Everything fights for life.” It’s interesting in that its meaning is ambiguous. Did you mean “there are no exceptions”, or “there is only one exception – you”?

    The problem here, I think, is the word “fights”. In the metaphorical sense, “fights” means “struggles”, so your statement “Everything fights for life” is true. In the literal sense, “fights” means “physical adversarial combat” and in this sense, your statement “Everything fights for life” is false. I offer myself as an example of an exception to that “rule”, and I am by no means an exceptional example.

    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 16, 2008:
    In any event, your view of life is clearly different from mine. I view all life in the earth’s environment as struggling against nature and other lifeforms to survive.

    Clearly, our views of life are identical. It would be preposterous to deny that “all life in the earth’s environment … struggl(e) against nature and other lifeforms to survive”; what I take exception to is your equating “all life struggles to survive” with “all life wages war”. I offer myself as an example:
    I struggle to survive, yet I do not wage war. Do you disagree? If so, tell me what you think I do that constitutes “waging war”.

    Failing to discriminate between “waging war” and “struggling to survive” results in the conflation of fundamentally different things. Thus, a lioness hunting antelope to eat and George Bush invading Iraq to extend empire are both “waging war”, merely engaging in the biologically imperative “struggle to survive”.
    The lioness must eat to survive and must kill to eat, hence, it kills to survive. Is this true of George Bush? Assuredly, Bush must eat to survive (theories of shape-shifting reptilian aliens notwithstanding), but must he invade Iraq, kill thousands of innocent people, waste billions of dollars, destroy wealth, property and natural resources, and spit on the Constitution, so that he may eat? Does his survival depend on his initiating war? Does ours? Is this a biological imperative? I think the reasonable and obvious answer to these questions is “no”, and this is (one reason) why I think the initiation of war is fundamentally different than what the lioness does. Not only is the initiation of war not necessary for our survival, it is actually antithetical to it. It consumes huge amounts of valuable resources, money and time, all of which could otherwise be put to productive uses. It pollutes and destroys natural resources, destroys animal and human life and the wealth created by that human life. War reduces the number of actual and potential trading partners while increasing animosity, hatred, and the number of mortal enemies. War, as Randolph Bourne said, is the health of the state. It is also the death of society, peace and prosperity. The intitiation of war is anti-life and anti-survival. It is unnecessary and thus must be condemned, just as the lioness’s attack, her only chance to eat and hence survive, must be recognized as necessary, and certainly not “waging war”.

    While most non-domestic carnivorous animals must coerce to survive, humans need not and indeed, should not, if human survival is what is at stake. This is why the non-aggression principle is so fundamentally important, and so fundamentally human.

    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 16, 2008:
    The problem, historically, is one of perception. Wars have started without the initiation of violence by the party actually responsible for starting the war. I’m thinking of the Boer Wars, where England “started” the war economically and politically, but it was the South African Boer farmers who fired the first shot. Same sort of scenario during the Boxer Rebellion in British-controlled China. That’s why I maintain that initiation of violence is actually too simple a criteria to use on a macropolitical scale.

    Let’s not get sidetracked. The title of this thread is “Fuck The Troops”, which clearly refers, not to British troops during Britain’s era of empire-building, but to American troops during the current American era of empire-building.
    As a supporter of the non-aggression principle, I condemn them, the entire American war machine, and all the knaves and dupes who voted their support for violating this principle, and all the concomitant disruption, destruction and death that they are the cause of.

    MMMark asked, on Jun 16, 2008:
    If you became convinced that the differences are significant, would you oppose war, or at least withdraw your support of it?
    and Lee Warner answered, on Jun 16, 2008:
    I do not give blanket support for all war.

    This sounds like a “no” to me. Is it?

    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 13, 2008:
    There are so many assumptions here.
    It does NOT follow that what is “deep and pervasive” is not hatred, but self-hatred, and fear of everyone else. That is an unwarranted assumption on your part, with no basis in your personal or professional knowledge of me or anything I have written here. I took that supposition as an accusation of cowardice, although I don’t know that you meant it that way…I don’t understand where any of those assertions came from.

    Very well, I’ll try again.
    It’s not “psychoanalysis”. You said:

    Lee Warner wrote, on May 30, 2008:
    But my support for war,…is born of a deep, pervasive, misanthropic hatred of other human beings who believe that harming me is a way to advance themselves.

    Alright. Which people does the group “of other human beings who believe that harming (me, you, anyone) is a way to advance themselves” comprise? I submit they are the very people involved in initiating war. This includes all the people/groups you mentioned earlier:

    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 13, 2008:
    War-mongers include military officers, legislators & other politicians, intelligence agents, manufacturers, financiers, lawyers, and all sorts of other people who have a vested reason to support any given war.

    Clearly, this group of “other human beings” must also include the grunts who pull the triggers and open the bomb bays, if they are members of the initiating side.

    If you are any one of these “other human beings”, then you have become one of the “other human beings” you profess a “deep, pervasive, misanthropic hatred of”. Hence, you harbor a “deep, pervasive, misanthropic hatred of” … yourself!

    To assert that you hate others who would attack first, but do not hate yourself when you do so, is hypocrisy. It is the employment of a double standard: “It’s okay for me to murder others, but not okay for others to murder me.” But if you plead immunity from the non-aggression principle, then so can (and will) everyone else, hence, no non-aggression principle. If the non-aggression principle is to have any practical meaning, its proscription must apply universally and without exception.

    This is not “psychoanalysis”, and I don’t really believe you “hate yourself”, obviously. What I’ve done is employ reductio ad absurdum – the refutation of a proposition by demonstrating the inevitably absurd conclusion to which it would logically lead.

    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 13, 2008:
    I took that supposition as an accusation of cowardice

    It wasn’t, nor could it be, because cowardice is not an emotion; fear is an emotion. Cowardice is a moral verdict, a label person A slaps on person B when person A disapproves of person B’s fearful behavior. Fear is value-neutral, whereas cowardice is value-negative. Labelling a person “a coward” ostensibly tells us something about the fearful person, when in fact it tells us something about the labeller: that he disapproves of someone else’s behavior, without being honest enough to admit it.

  46. By MMMark on 18 June 2008

    Wed. 08/06/18 16:01 EDT

    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 16, 2008:
    try to remember the evil that YOUR government DOESN’T do to you right now. Try to work to keep it that way, and even make it more free.

    I’m concerned, not just with where we are, but where we’re headed, and I don’t like the direction. What I say is intended not merely as complaint or condemnation, but as warning and as education. What other “work” could I possibly do?

    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 16, 2008:
    Bush is only the latest military leader in history. All of them, in all countries, in all centuries and historical periods, ALL leaders are skilled liars and manipulators. In the mass manipulation of huge populations, leaders have always relied upon the poor and uneducated to fill the bulk of the billets in their martial forces, by lying to them about pride, honor, and the depth of the evil in the enemy culture. Sometimes, they actually told the truth, but only in the service of their overall propaganda theme.

    If I could distill what you have said, it might be something like this:

    War is inevitable, because there will always be sufficient numbers of the sufficiently gullible that form the warfare’s “human materiel”.

    If this is the essence of it, then it’s not historicism, although it may be mild cynicism. I tend to think that “ideas have consequences”, and, given enough time, with clear thinking and speaking, people can eventually learn to separate the wheat from the chaff, ideologically, and will eventually recognize the non-aggression principle as the cream of the crop. I would proselytize for it regardless, and shall, while I am still free to; indeed, that is the only time to do so!

    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 16, 2008:
    the word “murder” is codified in law as “the unlawful taking of human life.” …
    My employer specifically exempted me from retribution, and gave me medals instead of prosecution and incarceration. Pragmatically speaking, it’s not murder.

    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 16, 2008:
    Ideologies are symbolic only, and have no power, until they are accepted by enough people to become law.

    You have it backwards. What you are saying is this: If you can get away with murder, then you are not a murderer, pragmatically speaking. If the law says “It’s okay”, then it’s okay, pragmatically speaking. What I’m saying is “Yes you are” and “No it’s not”, truthfully speaking. It’s not morality that’s derived from law, it’s law that’s derived from morality. We start with a moral principle, for example, the non-aggression priniciple. We derive a law (one of several) from that: thou shalt not commit murder (non-defensive killing).

    I believe in calling a spade a spade, and a murder a murder, regardless of what the law calls it. To me, that is the fundamental issue here: plain speaking and honesty.

    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 16, 2008:
    Well, that’s the sort of position I was in. I got a draft notice two weeks after my 18th birthday.

    And for those who enlisted voluntarily, the “agency” promised them “Fun, Travel, Adventure”. What they got was a one-way ticket to Hell (or, if they were lucky, a round trip).

    On condemnation:

    I think I can understand, a little, what it must feel like to value honor so highly, but receive instead scorn and condemnation. The purpose of my inculpative rhetoric is not to single out individuals upon whom to inflict emotional pain or punishment, nor are those individuals the targets. I speak to your because you are here, but the “targets” are “those who don’t understand”. I try to say, as strongly as I’m able, that what has been done is wrong, and I use every technique available to me, including moral condemnation. This is the only way I know of having any effect whatsoever on changing a situation, a situation founded on the mass belief of lies, that I find abhorrent. I try to shout out “This is no time for moral compromise or moderation!” To invoke the story of The Emperor’s New Clothes, how effective would the boy have been had he meekly admitted “I can’t see his clothes”? To be effective, he had to cry out “But he has nothing on!” Thus do I cry out against our “emperors”, and hope a few people will hear.

  47. By MMMark on 18 June 2008

    Wed. 08/06/18 16:09 EDT

    correction:

    MMMark wrote, on Jun 18, 2008:
    I speak to your

    should be

    I speak to you

  48. By MMMark on 18 June 2008

    Wed. 08/06/18 16:40 EDT

    Lee Warner wrote, on May 31, 2008:
    I enjoy having my preconceptions torn apart, my belief systems challenged, my facts debated, and my premises argued.

    Then I strongly recommend the writing of Thomas Szasz; I defy you to find a more ruthless iconoclast.

  49. By MMMark on 20 June 2008

    Fri. 08/06/20 08:30 EDT

    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 18, 2008:
    Only codified law can be used by government to forcibly deny me my property, liberty, and life
    No. Codified law and “democratic mandate” are “used by government” to rationalize its abrogation of one’s rights (to property, liberty and life). Guns are used by government to forcibly deny one’s rights to property, liberty and life.

    Lee Warner wrote, on Jun 18, 2008:
    So, the fact that I have killed men means I have committed homicide, but not murder.
    But this is precisely what I object to. Suppose, for example, that the government were to legally codify the statement: “the killing of men shall be defined as homicide, except when governmentally sanctioned (as, for example, during times of war or other measures officially deemed as necessary).” Then, “the fact that you have killed men” would not even mean you had committed homicide! But why stop there? Why not just just define the “killing of men” as strictly a private, non-governmental act? Then, as far as the law was concerned, you would not even be a killer. This whole enterprise reminds me of the story Ten minutes late, yet still on time: how rail firms define punctuality: How do officials respond to embarassing statistics that show the trains running late? By improving the service? NO! By redefining the expression “on time” to mean “plus or minus 10 minutes of stated ETA”!

  50. By Mike Gogulski on 20 June 2008

    Zach wrote: Massive numbers of Chicanos and Blacks feel like they have no other option to feed their families and survive as Bush’s terrorist activities destroy our economy, except to join the military which is all-too-happy to accept them.

    They are incorrect, and do have other options. And, for having made an error of fact couched in the guise of a specious “necessity”, I’m not about to separate out those who came from poor backgrounds and felt they had no other choice into a special class worthy of lesser condemnation for their actions or for being part of the machine.

  51. By Jigs Lange on 9 July 2008

    “you take from our schools to build a bigger bomb;
    you tell us firery lies about the course were on;
    can you kill all the world, the earth the sun?
    which would you sell first, your soul or your gun?
    your on a one way road, to the destruction of Bell-Babylon*

    *lyrics by Trampled by Trutles with the last line by yours truly

    YES, FUCK THE TROOPS; I hope they are put by the jackboots in concentration camps were they belong; unfourtanetly, they are returning to the US, so hang on to your guns.

    Cut all military pensions to Zero, and let these parasites work like the rest of us!

  52. By Jimi G on 9 July 2008

    Greetings to Kent McManigal, we encountered each other on the fantastic WWGHA forum last year. I wish you luck in your endeavors Kent.

    I have not read as interesting a post and discussion in quite a while. It’s been even longer since I posted. I have become extremely cynical in the last year and have moved beyond anarchism, self-sovereignty and radical individualism to utter numbness. My wife puts it best: “You have 30-40 years left here — why the fuck do you want to be miserable and make me miserable too?” Point well taken.

    It all appears so fucking hopeless. Especially lately. Waiting for the other shoe to drop. Like Lee Warner posted, when 7 billion humans start getting hungry and cold, it’s gonna get mighty interesting. Goddamn agricultural and industrial revolutions!

    That I am moved to post is surprising to me. I too share the “Fuck the troops” sentiment, for just about every reason stated here by prior posters.

    I share Lee Warner’s sentiment that the human race is composed of natural born killers. I share MMMark’s sentiment that the essence of humanity is free will. How to square that circle?

    While I cannot say how I would react in a life-and-death situation, intellectually I am a pacifist. To me, murder is murder. I draw no distinction between the initiation of force and reactive force. One day I may be a murderer because I defended myself. I sure don’t want to know how that feels. I’ll do everything I can to avoid that.

    Then again, there’s that old saw about the judge who never saw a horse that needed stealing, but sure saw men that needed killing. The newspaper and blogs are chock full of stories of those.

    Oh well, never did see a problem that large doses of alcohol, pot, pussy and rock ‘n roll couldn’t put out of mind for a while. Anyone want to form a band?

    Thanks for putting up with me. I go away now.

  53. By MMMark on 12 July 2008

    Sat. 08/07/12 13:51 EDT

    Jimi G wrote, on Jul 9, 2008:
    Like Lee Warner posted, when 7 billion humans start getting hungry and cold, it’s gonna get mighty interesting. Goddamn agricultural and industrial revolutions!

    Both you and Lee might find a man like Norman Borlaug uplifting. Here’s an interview with Borlaug: Billions Served: Norman Borlaug interviewed by Ronald Bailey

    I also highly recommend The Ultimate Resource, and
    The Ultimate Resource 2, both by Julian Simon.

  54. By MikeT on 19 July 2008

    Excellent essay, Mr. Gogulski. You are one of the rare people in this country whose ability to make correct moral judgments hasn’t been clouded by propaganda, group-think, and/or plain old innate stupidity. We need more people heroically pointing out the emperor’s lack of clothing.

    I especially hate the infernal lie that “our brave men and women in uniform” are “fighting for our freedoms.” Every time I hear that meme, it makes me furious enough to bite the heads off nails. “Our troops” are fighting for a corrupt, evil government and would gladly take our freedoms away by force if ordered to do so.

    To those reading this: If you don’t already own and know how to use rifles, then get busy! Every single person who REALLY cares about freedom in the US has a DUTY to be prepared to resist any future oppression we might face. Get the most powerful weapons you can, and learn to make headshots at long range. When they come to silence us dissenters, take some with you!

  55. By Mike Gogulski on 20 July 2008


    Originally Posted By MikeT
    Excellent essay, Mr. Gogulski. You are one of the rare people in this country whose ability to make correct moral judgments hasn’t been clouded by propaganda, group-think, and/or plain old innate stupidity. We need more people heroically pointing out the emperor’s lack of clothing.

    Thank you very much, first for replying and then for the compliment.

    May I quibble? I’m fucking pissed off that I’m “rare”, as you stated. Also, did you miss the bit where I quit America some time ago? I love the land, I love the people, I love the spirit. But the reality is something else, and the hypocrisy too great to bear.

  56. By Bl4ckP0pe on 23 July 2008

    here’s a little cartoon to celebrate the perforation and ventilation by any means necessary of the USaNazi Gestapo in Iraq …

    “GameBoyz … on Tour”
    http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/129470

    Keep up the great work, and always support your friendly local Resistance Unit “;0))

  57. By http://magicmonkeyfla.livejournal.com/ on 17 August 2008

    i totally agree. fuck the troops has been my mantra for eons now. read my blog: magicmonkeyfla.livejournal.com. i am particularly angry over the latest american imperialistic actions toward russia. all you ever hear on cable news is russian aggression, how about some truth: american aggression is out of control. we have went from foreign intervention to full blown empire. our placing, with paid for polands help. missile ‘defence’ systems is pure see thru bullshit that threatens ww3.

  58. By Kevin on 31 August 2008

    I received my honorable discharge from the US Military back in 1988. Fortunately, I was never placed in a situation where such a moral crisis presented itself to me.

    However, around 1986, I somehow started thinking for myself. And I had decided, after approximately 6 months of careful thought, that I would not willingly allow the military to place me in a situation where such a moral/ethical issue presented itself.

    The final 18 months of my enlistment were a living hell for me, as I knew that I would not blindly obey an order to do something that I considered wrong. As an MP (Military Police) this placed me in a personal level of hell the likes of which I wish to never experience again.

    Fortunately, I escaped the military when my enlistment was fulfilled without such a moral/ethical problem.

    Realistically, I cannot fathom how people in the US Military in Iraq can live with themselves. If they are OK with what is going on around them, courtesy of the US Military, then they are deeply messed up individuals, and their place amongst normal people is questionable. If they are not OK with what is going on around them, courtesy of the US Military, then they are in a living hell that is probably going to severely twist there psyche, and their place amongst normal people is questionable.

    Thank you, USSA government for teaching me, first hand, to hate all governments!

  59. By Blackhart on 24 October 2008

    Fuck The Troops
    Fuck The Troops – Heroin Black
    GAhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

    No bombs
    Bloodshed written in the laws
    The burning homes and crumbling walls
    You’ve been annexed to their estate
    You get no peace from a police state
    DC makes the stupid wars (Its for money, Its for money)
    Why do we need their stupid war? (Ask them who their fighting for)
    Fuck the troops and their stupid wars (Nooooooooo!)
    Ask them who their fighting for
    Its for money, Its for money (Ask them who their fighting for)
    Its for money, Its for money

    Pack your shit and leave Iraq
    Or get wiped out when we fight back
    Bush planned 9-11 attacks
    Just like Reagan when he made crack
    Tell your lies to the stupid congress
    You cant rule if you aint honest
    Your greed shows, cant hide your motives
    Steal elections- who needs voters?
    Freedom justifies the murders
    Democracy defends the mortars
    Fuck the troops for following orders
    Real freedom dont have no boarders
    Rape the Earth with Uranium rounds
    Fallout goes around and comes down
    And we all die when it hits the ground
    Shoot em when they campaign your town

    Money, Money, Bloody Money!
    Oil, blood, this shit aint funny (Its for money, Its for money)
    Lock the doors- democracys coming
    Shoot you in the back when youre running

    Ask em who their fighting for

    No more oil wars
    Fuck!

    Its for money, Its for money
    Ask em who their fighting for (Its for money, Its for money)
    Fuck these fuckin stupid wars (Ask em who they fightin for)
    Fuck the troops and this stupid war!

  60. By Faded Character on 28 October 2008

    May God bless you and work a great miracle in your life. I hate what you believe, but I do not hate you. Go in peace and do not spread hate.

  61. By P.M.Lawrence on 24 December 2008

    ‘And we knew, as they should have, that the murderous, destructive, obscene organization they volunteered to serve, hadn’t conducted a legitimate “defense of America” since at least WWII, and maybe as far back as the War of 1812…’ Not even that; the USA was the aggressor then. Arguably, US operations after the raid on Columbus, New Mexico were strategically defensive, but considering how New Mexico became part of the USA, it can be argued the other way too.

    “I rejected the rationale for the wars in Panama, Bosnia/Serbia, Gulf War I, and the Falkland Islands” – I trust that the last refers to the Argentine invasion, not to the strategically defensive operations that followed.

    “…American support of the British in the Falklands…” – that didn’t happen.

    “…the entire Mongolian nation, men, women, and children, uprooted themselves…” – no, they didn’t. The whole point of a nomad lifestyle is that people aren’t rooted in the first place. That’s what made it possible.

  62. By Jigsaw23 on 11 February 2009

    I wonder how many troops are currently researching your particulars and trying to find out where you and your family live. You know, to give you flowers and candies for Valentines Day! :) At least I know where to send the candy.

  63. By Jigsaw23 on 11 February 2009

    I love you man, keep up the good work!

  64. By Vinter on 1 March 2009

    To Jigsaw23, I doubt any of us are sparing any of our precious moments at home looking for some one as inconsequential as this.

    I just want to ask the author if he has been to the middle east lately. Not in the cities where it is relatively safe but, out on the farms. Life for these people is not spoken of in the media or any publication I have seen. Daily these people dealt with beatings, killings, kidnappings, robbery, sodomy, and other acts against them by criminals that reside around the area. A lot of people think that Al Qaeda is a single entity. This is a fallacy. There are two main types of the organization. One is the international organized crime terrorism group and the other are low criminals that prey upon the defenseless and weak.

    My tour through Iraq enlightened me about the true state of things in the world. I was lucky enough not to do a normal tour and as such was able to see just about every corner of Iraq. I’m telling you, with or without the attack on September 11, 2001 we were still needed there. Some one had to help these people. Most have little to no medical care. Families living in places that make most zoos look palatial. Military action was needed as humanitarian would have been easily taken by the local Mujadin.

    I am a healer of the sick and wounded. I avoid stepping on bugs if I can and escort the critters outside when I can. I am no killer, yet kill I have. The people I had to put down were loathsome and wretched human beings who lived off the misery and torture of others. After a few fire fights, I went to their aid to try and save their lives. Of course I am haunted by the light that I saw fading from their eyes. When I opened the door to the house they were defending and saw that there were over 20 bodies in various states of decomposition piled in one room after they were tortured and executed I knew that we were needed here. I have administered medicine and first aid to more foreign children and adults than I have American. It is my pride and honor to have served with the men and women of today’s military.

    It’s okay for you to disagree. Actually I am happy that you and yours do so. It keeps the people on the opposite side in check. Same for their frothing idiots and your own in your camp.

    I know you won’t believe me but, I want to tell you that as a general whole soldiers do not want to hurt anyone. We do so out of preservation for our own lives and the lives of the friends we have made while in the service.

    We are sacrificing pieces of our humanity so that you don’t have to. Was I turned into a monstrous killer by the military? No. Have I killed in my service to it? Yes. I am happy to do so on your behalf. Thank you for being a true American and questioning the system, the government, and this war. I leave you with this thought.

    “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”

  65. By Mike Gogulski on 1 March 2009

    @Vinter: Since I really can’t be bothered with this post any more — especially as it comes to the justifications that trained murderers use to lull themselves to sleep at night — I leave you with this:

    You are a true believer. Blessing of the state, blessings of the masses. Thou art a citizen of the divine: created in the image of man, by the masses, for the masses. Let us be thankful we have an occupation to fulfill. Work hard. Increase production. Prevent accidents. And be happy.

  66. By Vinter on 1 March 2009

    I expected as much. I present to you real experiences and insight. It must be nice to be a walking paradox. Such a closed minded freethinker.

  67. By Mike Coll on 11 April 2009

    As a minister,well I should say I am not surprised by misleading religion.The so called professors of truth. Thou shall not kill.Why do we not hear outrage from these religious phoneys?These great worthless frauds, these liars, They are subservient to power, to money, THe priests, the pastors the ministers, the rabbis etc are an utter disgrace, you have let humanity down, the bible refers to you as blind dogs that cannot bark, you are utterly useless. Love your neighbor as yourself, LOVE YOUR ENEMIES. SHAME ON YOU RELIGIONISTS! War is perverse.

  68. By Seth on 11 April 2009

    Dah Gubmint sez:

    If person kills dozens of people on their own dime and time, for their own reasons, then that person is a “serial killer” who is “danger to society”.

    If a person kills dozens of people on the governments dime and time, for the government’s reasons, then that person is a heroic “soldier” who is “fighting for your freedom”.

    Government logic at its finest.

  69. By Vinter on 12 April 2009

    That’s a flawed and foolish comment Seth.

    The people that are doing most of the killing over there are not “innocent” in the slightest. They are murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and thieves. People only harassing the population not out of some evocation of their faith, they are simply doing it to make money.

    To call the general soldier a serial killer is like calling Jerry Lewis a pedophile.

  70. By Seth on 12 April 2009

    Fact: with a kill ratio of something upwards of 75:1, members of the U.S. are doing the lion’s share of the killing. It would not surprise if these criminals are also engaging in their share of rape, kidnapping and theft. And torture (Abu Ghraib?)

    Many members of the military “are simply doing it to make money” (or college money) as they are too weak-willed and/or stupid to make an honest buck.

    Instead they choose to get paid to serve an organization whose primary purpose is to threaten and “if necessary”, carry out acts of aggressive violence against mostly hapless people that are caught in the crossfire between the US government and the “enemy” du jour.

    Governments are always trying to redefine their crimes out of existence by taking a common criminal act and attaching a new label to it. Thus armed robbery becomes “taxation” and kidnapping becomes “arrest”, etc.

    Thinking people see through these lies. If there are people in the military that are responsible for 4 or more deaths is a single event, those people are in fact mass murderers.

    Whether or not their crimes are sanctioned by the same government they are killing for, is wholly immaterial. Governments themselved are the largest criminal organizations, so to expect any type of moral behavior out of these organizations is foolish at best.

  71. By Vinter on 14 April 2009

    Please stick to the facts. Conjecture only demeans your point of view as one of simply making inflammatory accusations simply for the pleasure of doing so. One can throw about statistics with out reference all they want. The numbers you have presented are complete fallacy. If what you said is true then there have been 2,337,675 killings by US soldiers, roughly 1.2% of the entire population of the Middle East. You can check these numbers out yourself here http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats5.htm
    and here http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/

    As for your second statement you could not be further from the truth. Most have joined the Army out of a sense of patriotism and duty. One must question your notion of “honest buck”. Is not public service a honest vocation?

    This “organization” is a body of Representatives that are voted in power by their constituents. The Federal Government’s primary purpose seems to be Health Care related as you can see here: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/US_per_capita_spending.html#usgs302H0

    Thinking people do see through lies. No matter which direction they come from.

    The word murderer is tossed around here like lollipops at a pediatric clinic. Killing should never happen. We should be able to set aside our differences and live in harmony. If only that could happen. If only people were as willing to suffer others their differences, as we in America are. Such is not the case. Barbarity in all it’s forms roams the land. It is the brave soldiers of the United States and other countries that have stemmed the tide for the majority of the population of Iraq.

  72. By AK on 23 May 2009

    Fuck you American pieces of shit, I hope you all get executed you all piece of shits, I fuckin rape all you in America you mother fuckers, then I piss on your flag wrapped around the caskets, fuck all you.

  73. By Brad on 13 June 2009

    Please, all of you who feel that we veterans are criminal, please visit your local military post and you yourselve hold us accountable. Please. You hide behind your vacant prose – you stand for nothing. Traitor is too flatering a term to be used. You cower behind the freedoms that we protect, in the safety of our nation, and spew hatred at those who have the fortitude to stand for what they believe in. Please stand for what you believe in. Meet us stateside, fly to Iraq or Afganistan, meet us where you will – but please take your empty rhetoric to action. Hold us accountable for the false crimes you ignorantly believe that we have commited.
    Be thankful for grace, that is the only way you could ever have become a citizen of this nation. Please renounce – please leave, you are not welcome.

  74. By Baseless War on 14 June 2009

    God, look at this piece of shit killer Lee Vintner, who comes and inhabits this blog post for almost a year. How pathetic. This killer, who cries himself to sleep at night, and pops drugs and cries to his shrink no doubt… tries to kid himself that a decent war of defense has been fought since world war 2. Tries to kid himself that he is a breed apart, a ‘rough man’ who does what we won’t. No pal, you fucking moron, we’ll pick up a gun next time Japan attacks, Germany rolls in, not some tinpot dictatorship who couldn’t do more than a bee sting. It’s not our business to ‘build a democracy’… did you see any other great power forcing our hand to build our democracy when we wished to back in the day? No. We did it ourselves. You’re a fucking bloody handed murderer, and I spit on you, and if you did die, you’d have made zero difference just like the dead 4000 murdering cunts who signed up and died in Iraq already. I spit on you, your pathetic ‘easy way out’ choice to go and become a hired killer instead of make it in the real economy on your own merits, you took the easy way out, and I don’t give a fuck how many band aids you put on little kids legs, you blew apart their father’s fucking brains you fucking murderer! No one wants you here at this blog post, just FUCK OFF, back to your bottle of psychiatric drugs, and get the fuck out of our faces. You’re no longer a fully fledged human in our eyes, as you said, you sold a piece of your humanity, you said it yourself….

    and not so we wouldn’t have to you fucking moron. There’s a BIG fucking difference pal between being ready to be on standby for ANY AND ALL political war, and rapidly signing up to a justified war like the heroes of world war 2. Which you fucking pale in comparison to by the way fuckstick.

    In closing, take your fucking bullshit, overreaching painful to watch, false front, just for show, moral relativism, and get the fuck out my face, cry yourself to sleep tonight, remember as you said, the light fading from the eyes of the strangers you killed in the strange country, men who couldn’t even point to your home town on a map, and shut the fuck up. Wallow in your crimes against humanity, and fucking die of depleted uranium cancer for all I care.

    Oh you’re brave? You’re a brave American soldier Vinter are you? Real brave. Thanks man, thanks for defending us from the massive aircraft carriers of iraq, the millions of high tech equipped troops they had, the 22,000 nuclear warheads they had pal, thanks so much, I mean we were like days from their tanks rolling down Los Angeles’ streets killing all of us and enslaving us taking away our ‘freedom’, so thanks man, really, I mean I was just planning on going to the office everyday and letting you fight the real enemies…. oh well… maybe no, maybe REAL MEN SIGN UP WHEN REAL WARS ARE JUSTIFIED… and WEAK FUCKING MURDERING COWARDS see it as a ‘career’… waiting on standby for whatever the fuck son of bush says… you’re a damn fool.

    REAL MEN DON’T WAIT ON STANBY WITH A GUN, THEY WORK IN THE REAL WORLD AND PICK UP A GUN WHEN NECESSARY IN SELF DEFENSE. YOU DIDN’T DO THAT. YOU SAW KILLING AS A CAREER. YOU THEREFORE ARE A BLOODY MINDED PIG, WHO RIGHTLY CRIES HIMSELF TO SLEEP EVERY NIGHT.

    Now, to repeat, no justified ‘protectors of our freedom’ have left our country on a plane or ship with a gun since 1945!

    When we are in real danger of enemy tanks rolling down our streets, I’ll pick up a gun then, i don’t need thugs like you to be ‘standing by’ ready for Granada, Somalia, Iraq, or whatever the fuck war of empire the leader says jump for… you’re so convinced you’re a ‘thinking man’, but your actions, particularly your actions with a pen, signing up for ANY WAR THEY SAY, show otherwise. You chose to be a hired killer for ANY WAR they said… the heroes of world war 2, who you don’t compare to AT ALL, left civilian life when a worthy threat called them to stand up for freedom, a worthy threat, a real threat, Japan and Germany. You’re a fucking moron if you think Iraq ever posed a real threat even slightly in the league of our former great enemies.

    You therefore, are worthy of my big fat loogie spit in your face. So here it is…. huiiiiicckkk! In your face murderer. I spit on you, and your ‘career hired killer’ comrades in unjustified arms.

    And when the time comes to really defend freedom, if it ever does again, as it hasn’t happened since 1945… that’s when real men, will leave their real lives (which you never had being a gun monkey in the army isn’t a career), and fight a real enemy. Until then, I spit on you and those weak fools like you who took the easy way out, and now live with the memories, flash, of the light, as you said it, going out of the eyes, of those you fucking killed Vinter. You didn’t fight in my name, you didn’t fight for a just reason, you didn’t fight someone who came into your home, you invaded and raped another country’s people, and may you burn in fucking hell if there is one. But I doubt there is, so a few decades of you crying to a shrink will do me just fucking fine. Go cry in your fucking beer you fucking bloody handed murdering cunt Vinter. And save your fucking bullshit posturing and pathetic rationalizations for some other blog. Wouldn’t you be more at home with your fellow killers on a milblog? Just fuck off you psycho fucking moron, seriously, what kind of a GUILT RIDDEN FUCK HEAD, feels the need to post comments on the same blog post for over 12 months, I’ve seldom seen anything like it, you’ve clearly got some deep ‘need’ to ‘convince’ the citizens of America you’re not a vicious killer, but even if you stretch your blog posting to 24 months, or 30 years, you’ll still be a fucking killer and worthy of my fucking SPIT. I spit on you, and I’m more proud of spitting on you, than you have the right to be of anything you’ve ever done in your life. Make your life’s first good decision Vinter, and swallow a round out of your fucking side arm.

  75. By Baseless War on 14 June 2009

    Oh sorry, I meant Lee Warner…. AND Vinter… who gives a fuck they are all the same… guilty… hence they linger.

  76. By Λη Ουάρνερ on 15 June 2009

    Δεν έχω τίποτα να πω.

  77. By Vinter on 15 June 2009

    Mr. War,

    I will try to reply to your tirade to the best of my abilities:

    I did not join the military out of some base need to kill others, quite the opposite in fact. I too feel that the war in Iraq is unjust and I hated Bush’s regime. As a medical professional I felt the need to do something. I knew too many grieving families and friends, and had a brother in the Army before I joined who told me of the insurgent males (to call them men would be to deface the word) who would hide behind their children while they shot at him driving down the road. So, unlike you, I didn’t just post an expletive and angst ridden post on a blog, I did something about it. I had a great career, I made plenty of money, and was happy in my life. When I joined the military two things changed, I put my career on hold and I did not make nearly the amount I did as a civilian. As far as the guilt goes, I do not feel bad at all about killing any of those men. They were horrific people who tried killing my comrades and I before we opened fire. A bit of my humanity wilted from my tour not because of the men who I shot and then saved but because of the realization that some men will not stop until the are dead. There is no reasoning, no discourse, no middle ground. They hate you for you and want you to die, period. If they can not have that they will not stop until they can get it.

    Thank you for being a patriot Mr. War. I’m glad that at least you appreciate some of the men who have died for you.

    This will be the last post I make on this subject as the discourse as of late is becoming less informed and even less legible.

    My goal for posting here originally was not to incite the mouth frothing drivel that Mr. War posted, it was an offer on open honest discourse. Discourse that I had hoped would be as tolerant and open minded as the people who advocate peace claim to be. I see that offer has be declined and is not welcome so I will not continue this.

  78. By Baseless War on 16 June 2009

    Nice one fuckhead, you know what, your ‘insurgent MEN’ were not doing anything to children, or anyone, IN FEBRUARY 2003 were they fuck head.

    And firing on you before you fired? You find that surprising do you? Given you were trespassing on their country’s soil, armed, and full of your bullshit ideology.

    How much money you made could NOT be more immaterial to ANYTHING, I don’t give a FUCK what kind of ‘professional’ you claim to be, you’re a professional excuse maker, making excuses for murders YOU committed in lands far away that never attacked nor even had the ability to invade your country.

    You’re a fucking piece of cunting shit. And your time will fucking come pal, so good, I hope you’re true to your fucking word and you do in fact fuck the hell off this blog post.

    You EXPECT US TO BE ‘TOLERANT’ of MURDERERS??? You’ve GOT to be kidding me pal.

    No, pal, the men that won’t stop, hate you because you’re a fucking intruder in their country. Because in February 2003, they were doing just fine, no civil war, no nothing… they were living how they chose, with a government that if they saw fit to overthrow, was their prerogative, it’s not our right to coerce another country to spit apart its government and start again… how would you like another nation telling america they know what’s best for us… it’s obscene…. and what you did, was obscene…

    You’d have to be loaded with a shitload of false ideas to even get on the fucking plane pal…. what the fuck were you thinking…

    Oh you ‘did something about it’ did you fuck head? You went over and gunned down some men who were minding their business until Bush picked a fight with them huh? Do you feel like a big man? Obviously you do, well done, mission accomplished dipstick.

    You’re a fucking callous, dangerous, deluded, state sanctioned murderer, and no matter what ‘healing’ your ‘medical civilian work’ can bring to humankind in the remaining decades you have on the earth, ALL of it is canceled out by your war crimes.

    ALL OF IT.

    Swallow a fucking 38.

    I fucking LOATHE you, and wish you every misery I’d wish any other callous murderer of your stripe.

    You are nothing but a piece of shit murderer, and one day, you’ll see, that I spit on your face, and so do millions of others, and you have the GALL to complain about the salary cut you took, the few thousand dollars of taxpayer funded army salary that was ripped from your fellow americans, and you spit on that money as well as spit on the value of human life.

    No pal, no Iraqi was hiding behind children in February 2003. Desperate people do desperate things. Who made them desperate? Who came and bombed and raped their nation? Without justiication?

    CUNTS LIKE YOU DID, that’s who.

    Fucking die, you horrible, malignant cunt of a ‘male’.

    I spit on you. Go polish your medals fuckhead, you’re a real big man, a real hero, we love you so much, thanks so much for ‘defending’ us from George Bush not being able to say he finished his old man’s war.

    You’re a piece of human rubbish, a MURDERER to be sure… and that, my filthy disgraceful disgusting cunt friend, might be why you get no respect around here. DIE IN A FIRE.

  79. By tomkat on 16 June 2009

    Did anyone notice how that Vinter guy tried to make logical reasons for going over to someone else’s country and blowing kids heads off?? Not my idea of a ‘great career’ what a jerk he must be. I would definitely try and kill that wanker too if rolled down my street in an A.P.G what a tosser. A TRUE HERO!!!

  80. By Baseless War on 16 June 2009

    Like I fuckin’ said. He’s a piece of shit. Horrible.

    If he thinks he’s justified… he’s kidding himself.

    Like all vets since world war 2… drafted vets excluded… He cries to his shrink every day.

  81. By Anonymous on 2 June 2010

    As much I dislike the conclusions Lee drew, his thinking was sound. I have come to oppose all of humanity on the basis that war and taxation our innate faults of the diverse genetic features which results in humanity. Also, I agree with Lee: it is right to shoot back. Moreover, it is for every individual to decide when murder is an appropriate form of redressing complaint. I personally oppose the US, UK, and Israel. I do not oppose murder. And it seems to me that complaining about war is as short-sighted and childish as protesting the weather. I am for war, but am against our troops. Given the opportunity, I’d likely kill our boys in uniform upon their return. In other words, like Lee, I have taken a side. In all, I oppose the troops, and agree with the original content of this article–except, as Lee pointed out, war is not “inhuman.” War is the single most strident feature which defines humanity–throughout history (more than 5,000 years even). Morality is merely an issue to be decided on the merits of which side you’ve taken.

  82. By Richard HZ on 2 June 2010

    I CONCUR, FUCK THE TROOPS. FUCK THEIR TREASONOUS STUPID COMPLIANT ASSES!

  83. By Brian Haun AKA proud american on 2 June 2010

    Wow you are unbelavable AMERICA LOVE IT OR GET THE FUCK OUT you love the first amendment so much why dont you try to go the the middle east and apose there leaders and see what happens how dare you make a web site like this and try to justify it fuck you. these troops fight so that you can say this shit grow some balls and be a man you hippie loving hag head blowing boy loving child molesting piece of shit

  84. By D Freeman on 2 June 2010

    I have never understood how if you shoot and kill a person in your country its murder the police can kill and shoot you and its call an accident but I can go and put on a uniform have six weeks training and I will be shipped out to a country were I can kill whom I want be it man, women, or child and get a medal for it or if I die I become a hero and my loved ones get a funeral with media a flag and a medal then nothing till my son is old enough to do the same thing and all the time the same people are making wars for us to make sure that they and their loved ones stay rich, its us who ‘s being fucked time and time again.

  85. By Old Fart Veteran on 2 June 2010

    Brian Haun:

    You really don’t get what the USA was, originally supposed to be about, do you?

    This silly-assed war is a direct violation of Washington’s farewell address. The US has strayed so far from it’s original intent that the original dads (aka the founding fathers) would bitch-slap every president since, and including, Lincoln. And then proceed to bitch-slap you and every other veteran, myself included, that willingly went to war in another country.

    By blindly obeying the modern US FedGov is treasonous to what this country was supposed to be.

    So, Brian Haun, you and all the wannabe “proud Americans” are the one’s that need to get your ass the fuck out of the USA, since you don’t belong here, and never did.

    PS: You also have no clue about the US constitution… it only applies to the FedGov, and limits and defines exactly what it can do. The rights enumerated in the “bill of rights” are a list of what the FedGov may not do, and has nothing to do with the people, who have these rights, inherently, by virtue of humanity.

  86. By Brian Haun AKA PROUD AMERICAN on 3 June 2010

    Ok old fart veteran so this war may be bullshit so why fuck the troops how about fuck the war. I am assuming you were in the military well if you had any ounce of pride you would be a pissed as i was when you found this site this is a bunch of people how dont have the balls to join the military or daddy fucked you in the ass to much. I know if you dont like your contry and the freedoms that you have here than GET THE FUCK OUT YOU PUSSY’S. there is nothing keeping you here GET THE FUCK OUT YOU NAZI COMMUNIST FUCK. If you like the fucking rage heads so much move the the middle east than they will send a video tape of them cutting your head off with a hack saw. Oh and by the way guess who will give there lives to try and save your sorry ass the best military in the world the us military. unless you have an argument about liking the fact that Americans are being beheaded in the middle east. So to the old fart veteran when They say fuck the troops that means you too.

    To be born free is an accident; To live free a responsibility; To die free is an obligation. ( Davis Hubbard)

  87. By Patrick on 5 July 2010

    FIRST OFF…..EAT A DICK FAGGOT ASS BITCH. Just because we do a job you are too chicken shit to do, doesnt mean you should knock us. Grow a fucking pair of balls and stand up and fight for a good cause rather than running your sucks for some worthless ass cause.
    You want to take this up with me, come see me or send me your info and I will come see you. Dont chicken shit out BITCH. Your man enough to put this crap up here on the internet, then you should be man enough to get your ass handed to you by someone who defends your stupid ass. Guys like you should be taken out back and fucking shot in the face.
    You have my email (patrick.carron@ymail.com), and I hope and pray that you use it.
    Fucking worthless piece of shit.
    You want a contribution, go get it from the terrorists you fuckheads are supporting. Dipshit.
    Words cannot even express how much I want to bury my foot in your ass.
    Fuck with me or any of my fellow sevicemembers, and I promise you that you will regret it for a very long time. That’s not a threat, its a promise.

  88. By Seth on 5 July 2010

    Seems like this Patrick Carron clown has his panties in a bunch over someone expressing an opinion that he doesn’t like.

    Absolutely hilarious how the extent of his debating capabilities seem limited to:

    A) Questioning manhood and sexual orientation

    B) Making violent threats

    I also love how he claims to be someone who “defends your stupid ass” while at the same time saying “you should be taken out back and fucking shot in the face”.

    So people that call for others to be shot in the face are really just “defending” them?! It doesn’t get much more mouth-breathing dumb-fucking-retarded than this folks. Of course, what else do you expect from a violent sociopath criminal-gangmember-in-a-uniform.

    What’s so funny and awesome about Mike renouncing his US submitizen-slaveryship, in addition to having left the United States years ago, is that all the “love it or leave it” douche-bags are going to have rack their double-think addled brains for a new epithet.

  89. By Mike Gogulski on 5 July 2010

    @Patrick: I bet you didn’t even read the article, but merely replied to the title.

    Hey, bigshot… yes, I’d like to come see you and take this up with you, so please send your info. Contact details for your mother and your commanding officer would also be greatly appreciated.

    (BTW, Mr. Carron is staying at the Washington Plaza Hotel, or at least was using their wi-fi at the time of his message.)

  90. By Judas PhD on 5 July 2010

    @ Patrick:

    You seem to be an idiot.
    You seem to be one of those people who just reads the title of an article without actually reading the article, and making assumptions as to the content of the article based solely upon the title.

    As least the esteemed Mr Gogulksi made things a bit easier for you by including some pictures in the article so you wouldn’t have to actually read and think, and thus cause your hair to start smoldering from your head heating up.

    Smooth move, coward, in leaving a Yahoo Email address…. like you can’t get a Yahoo email address up and running in less than five minutes.
    How about a real email address, next time?

    PS: I am a veteran. The military taught me how to neuter a dog with a rifle at 1000M.
    Fuck the Troops.

  91. By Uncle_Meat on 10 July 2010

    To all the troops and sympathizers who have read this or not but are pissed off, get a grip you brainwashed idiots. Ten years later we are still killing in Afghanistan, the longest war in US history. Are you proud of yourselves? You are failures, dupes and mind controlled zombies. Your welcome and support by We The People is waning quickly. This combined with the fact that you are also training to engage the American public and are actively arresting people in parts of the country, tell the world you are nothing but COWARDS!!! You scum, you have never fought a real warrior in your life. You go after civilians armed or not. People untrained who just want you out! This is the bottom line you jerk-offs. There are more of us than you. We will eventually take you down and stomp you into oblivion. You are done! It’s over for you…

  92. By Winfred Mann on 17 September 2010

    FUCK YOU asshole

  93. By Pablo on 3 December 2010

    Finally I found people that think by themselves and are not brainwashed. I was tired of the “Support the Troops” crap.

    Good work Mike. Keep it up.

  94. By PROUD_SOLDIER on 19 December 2010

    I love how all you civilians think that soldiers are all raping, pillaging mercenaries that go overseas for the sole purpose of making people miserable and taking lives. I am not going to get into a pissing contest with you but the fact is you all have no idea what your talking about. You have never left the shelter of your safe little life, you have never taken an oath do put your country before yourself. You dont know what honor, loyalty, duty or leadership is because you are all keyboard rangers who dont have the balls to tell a soldier what you think of him to his face. I have spent 27 months in Iraq and have seen alot of nasty horrible things but none of this torture or mass murder of innocents you all speak of. Whether a soldier agrees with the war he is told to fight in or not is irrelevent. Iraq and Afghanistan are breeding grounds for religious nutjobs and extremists. If we invaded both of these country for no other reason that that should be enough. I would rather be over here dealing with these bastards than dealing with them on US soil. You all need to just be glad that there are other people who have the guts to enlist because if we didnt join up it would be left to ALL OF YOU. And keep in mind, if everyone chose to sit on their ass and bitch about everything like you all do, we would still be having tea and crumpets for breakfast. Whether you agree with war or not, it is a historical fact that war has solved more problems in the history of mankind than any other method. So me, and all of my fellow brothers in arms will continue to defend your right to slander us because if we dont do it, you certainly wont. Feel free to go to Fort Jackson and enlighten all us brainwashed idiots of how lost we are, anytime.

  95. By PROUD_SOLDIER on 20 December 2010

    I am a proud American and I will go anywhere that our nation’s leaders feel I should go. If i get told to storm a beach or trudge through a jungle I will be there without a moments hesitation. I was told to go to Iraq and liberate the people and transition them into a stable nation so I went and mission success. Granted, Iraq is not the most desirable place on earth but it has come a long way since Saddam’s rule. This is all due to the joint effort of the Irai’s AND the US Military. I am a soldier that went out of my way to do to Uncle Sam’s bidding no matter what my opinion on the matter is. This is called patriotism. The dedication and sacrifice to follow the orders of the leaders elected by the people of the United States. I have no problem with all the garbage you people have been spitting out. I have the steadfast loyalty to defend you from anyone who tries to take that freedom away from you. Whether or not we are being invaded right now is a mute point. If the US was threatened from another nation and American civilians were in danger, I would be standing right between our people and the threat. Even if those people are soldier bashing idiots like all of you are. Fuck the Troops? If the day ever comes when the enemy is knocking on our nation’s front door, I am sure you will all be singing a different tune. What the hell are YOU going to do to protect the American people? Are you going to start a forum and feed propoganda at the enemy until he leaves? If the veteran’s of all the United States’ conflicts could have heard all the garbage posted here they would be sorely disappointed at what has become of the nation they have defended.

    Now you can go ahead and begin your tirade of obscenities and rhetoric. HOOAH!

  96. By Mike Gogulski on 20 December 2010

    @David:

    “I am a soldier that went out of my way to do to Uncle Sam’s bidding no matter what my opinion on the matter is. This is called patriotism.”

    No, that’s called stupidity.

    You really have no idea who you’re talking to here. I’m an ex-American. Stateless. Renounced my citizenship.

    And by the way, fuck your uncle.

  97. By Pablo on 20 December 2010

    Man, you are so blind and brainwashed you can’t see that the only one enemy that America has (and always had) is it’s own government. That it is the point of this blog, of course, we don’t expect you will ever notice it.
    If you want to defend America, go and get rid of all those bastards that have the power. Those that sent you and all comrades to fight a nonsense war. Well, not totally nonsense, they are making tons of money out of it while you people risk your lives and die.
    What you don’t see, is that people like us, is trying to “save your life”. It’s totally the opposite to what you think, and what they made you believe.
    Why? is not because we like you, it is because we can think for ourselves, and we don’t want our children, siblings, nephews, friends, or whatever, to have the same brainwash and fate that they gave you.
    Also, we want them to stop wasting the money they collect from us in useless crap, like the “War on Terror”. They are the only terrorists in this world. They should be killed.
    I bet you still think that Bin Laden was behind 9/11, right?
    Buddy, for your own good, go, do some research, but first, open your mind (I really don’t think you’ll be able to do that, but give yourself a chance) and try to make your OWN OPINION of what REALLY is going on out there.

    Good Luck with that!!!

  98. By Gonad T Barbarian on 20 December 2010

    I’m a veteran.
    I got my honorable discharge back in the 1980′s, back before the US was openly torturing prisoners for all the world to see.

    So,

    When was the last time the US attacked a country that could actually fight back?
    The World Wars don’t count, Germany and Japan were unable to attack US mainland (Pearl Harbor wasn’t on US mainland… hell, Hawaii wasn’t part of the US until about 15 years after WW2 (that’s for the, so-called, “patriots” out there)).

    The revolutionary war doesn’t count, since the US wasn’t a country at the time.
    Perhaps the “civil war”, but how far north did the CSA get into the USA? Gettysburg?

    Pffft! The United States, for all its posturing and bravado, always attacks weak opponents who cannot really fight back, and certainly none that can attack the US itself. This war with Iraq is like a 30 year-old man beating up a 12 year-old quadraplegic girl with guillion-barre syndrome.

    And for all it’s screwing with every other country on the planet for 50+ years (the US has even been screwing with Canada over fishing rights for decades…. who picks on Canada?!?! that’s just LOW), the first time someone actually does the unthinkable and unconceivable heinous act of attacking something on the US mainland, the US acts like a bunch of whining maggots and cries like little girls.

    Face it, the US is a bully that is, basically, a pansy and a wimp at heart. And the “patriotic” troops are just doing the bidding of an unworthy master. The US was based upon the principle of saying “no!” to government, to its own government. And these sunshine patriots need to learn this.

    Concerning obedience and following orders: remember the Nuremberg trials?

  99. By PROUD_SOLDIER on 20 December 2010

    I honestly pity everyone of you. I am sorry that you all share a warped view of how things really are. I respect that you all believe in something enough to create a following but beyond that I dont see what you hope to accomplish. God bless everyone of you for embracing your right to say what you want to say. I dont agree with you but I understand that everyone is right in their own mind. So I wish you all well, I am not going to start cussing you out as I see all of you doing here, I will simply disagree with you. I enjoyed reading all of the above posts but I am not going to continue ranting. I have my beliefs and you all obviously share a different belief.

    Good luck to you all!

  100. By Mike Gogulski on 20 December 2010

    Sure, everyone is right in their own minds. Even deranged psychopaths, nutty patriots and brainwashed fools.

    Funny, I was just having a conversation about this earlier:

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PT-Refuge/message/41347

    You go, there, you, with your wishing and your faux respect. I do hope you enjoy living in Saudi Arabia. You fucking tool. Or, wait, maybe you’re connected now, after your time there, to the local privileged classes?

  101. By PROUD_SOLDIER on 20 December 2010

    Its like talking to a snotty 4 year old.

  102. By PROUD_SOLDIER on 20 December 2010

    How does it feel to know that every time I step off of a plane in uniform, I get cheered and thanked by all the flag waving patriots my country has? I understand if your jealous mike, its ok. I understand for a stateless coward that must seem pretty sweet. So what nation do you hold dear? Who are you to preach the meaning of patriotism and all this stuff when you tucked tail and ran? That is the move of a coward. You all say this garbage about how soldiers should turn their guns on their superiors but when have any of you done anything to further your cause besides hide behind a keyboard and spit bullshit? Real fucking hotshots everyone of you.

  103. By PROUD_SOLDIER on 20 December 2010

    You conspiracy buffs are hilarious. Yeah 9-11 was a government setup, we never really landed on the moon either right? You guys are made of pure champion stuff.

  104. By Pablo on 20 December 2010

    They used to receive Hitler the same way, so, what does that mean?

  105. By PROUD_SOLDIER on 20 December 2010

    I can play that game too. They recieved Martin Luther King that way as well. What does that mean.
    Pablo what have you done in your entire life to further this cause that you supposedly believe so strongly in? Im betting nothing besides post on forums like this.

  106. By PROUD_SOLDIER on 20 December 2010

    Pablo, the fact that you tried to use Hitler against me in a negative sense makes me laugh simply at the irony of your words.

    You implied that Hitler was bad in order to group me with him. Well the US Military is responsible crushing Hitler’s war machine and ending his little campaign of terror in Europe. So by trying to insult me you unintentionally appluaded the work done by the american troops. Good work clown shoe

  107. By Pablo on 22 December 2010

    As far as I know, the US supported Hitler, by the way, the grandfather of the criminal fool that started all this mess.

  108. By PROUD_SOLDIER on 22 December 2010

    Please read a book Pablo.

    And I would still like to know, what have you ever done to further your cause besides spit out bullshit online?

    No worries, I will wait.

  109. By Todd on 23 January 2011

    I hope every single person that betrays their country by spouting this shit dies. I hope you all get fucking aids and die. Your pathetic you sit there and cry for everyone in every country but your own. Fuck you all. You are traitors and you should be treated as such. We used to hang traitors now we let them become teachers in our universities…you all make me sick….

  110. By Mike Gogulski on 23 January 2011

    How many traitors have you lynched, Todd?

  111. By Ronin on 24 January 2011

    Todd, perhaps your brother’s name is Re-todd? Do you even know the definition of traitor? It seems you don’t, and your vocab is limited to words with four letters. I dare not call you a cretin, since your IQ is much lower.
    Mike has divorced Uncle Sam! Isn’t that simple enough to understand?
    THE POINT IS THAT UNCLE SAM IS A BULLY!
    There is NO honor in being part of such.
    And to all who have railed angrily here, do you know what love is? It’s caring for others, even the most despicable of humans.
    How many of you have ever lived outside of North America? Likely NONE, because if you had, you would know first-hand that people of many if not most other nations look at USA with varying degrees of disdain, and rightly so
    Proud to be American? BEWARE!! Pride comes before a fall, and Rome fell in a day. That day may come soon for Uncle Sam!!

  112. By Logan on 25 January 2011

    By paying taxes, you support the war. In order to judge troops by the standard that they are criminals if they do not resist or desert(ruin their lives), you must be willing to make the same sacrifice. If you are not, then you are a hypocrite. Unless your an unemployed basement dwelling virgin, in which case i say: Fight the good fight brother.

  113. By Mike Gogulski on 25 January 2011

    One word, Logan: Bullshit.

  114. By Ronin on 25 January 2011

    @Logan, you could pass for the ideological twin of Proud American with your fixation on sexual deviance or virginity. Are you homophobic or just in the closet? You can come out now, your congress repealed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
    You really missed the point of the article. You’ve heard of the phrase Guilty by Association, haven’t you? Today’s all-volunteer US military is akin to any drug cartel, mafia, or street-gang going around terrorizing all who disagree with the organization’s agenda.
    And THAT’S why the US GOVERNMENT has so many global enemies. Sadly, the majority of Americans are so painfully ignorant of the world outside of US/North America.
    Get a global education, leave the nest of tyranny, go live in ANY other country among the local people for a couple years for a taste of reality. MAYBE then you’ll lose the blinders you’re wearing.
    By the way, nonresidents don’t pay US taxes, and even US expats are exempt from US federal taxes on the first $91,000. And therefore do NOT support the US TERROR MACHINE.

  115. By SHODAN on 25 January 2011

    Logan:

    As we who are still trapped in the USSA are forced to pay taxes under threat, duress, or coercion, the fact that we do pay taxes that fund the government killing machine has no bearing on any moral question. To put it simpler, morality ends at the barrel of a gun. If I am funding the USSA government killing machine, it is only because I am not as brave, nor as moral, as the esteemed Mr Gogulski, or I lack the motivation and the courage to start treating the USSA FedGov exactly like it is treating me.

  116. By Ronin on 26 January 2011

    Shodan, you are exactly right. Get out if you can.

  117. By kethe on 24 February 2011

    While I do agree that the societal barrier set up by our overlords is demoralizing and just straight up wrong, you cannot hate the other victims of our what abusive semblance of a society our country has become. Saying that we must hate everyone from the janitor of Wal-Mart to the CEO of Microsoft is only half true. While the weak and frail man dictating the rules to the weather-beaten, starving workers sits aloof on his throne of wealth and secrecy deserves nothing less than a slow and demoralizing execution, the janitor that is half-starved and just getting by on the allowance of money made by his puppetmasters deserves not being forced to work under these conditions for these tangibly void notes of nothingness deserves nothing less than a good meal and a warm place to sleep.
    As kids these days say, don’t hate the player, hate the game (and it’s creators).

  118. By HistoriCUSS on 15 May 2011

    “It has been for some time a generally receiv’d Opinion, that a military Man is not to enquire whether a War be just or unjust; he is to execute his Orders. All Princes who are dispos’d to become Tyrants must probably approve of this Opinion, and be willing to establish it. But is it not a dangerous one? since, on that Principle, if the Tyrant commands his Army to attack and destroy, not only an unoffending Neighbour Nation, but even his own Subjects, the Army is bound to obey. A Negro Slave in our Colonies, being commanded by his Master to rob or murder a Neighbour, or do any other immoral Act, may refuse, and the Magistrate will protect him in his Refusal. The Slavery then of a Soldier is worse than that of a Negro! A consciencious Officer, if not restrain’d by the Apprehension of its being imputed to another Cause, may indeed resign; rather than be employ’d in an unjust War; but the private Men are Slaves for Life, and they are perhaps incapable of judging for themselves. We can only lament their Fate; and still more that of a Sailor, who is often dragg’d by Force from his honest Occupation, and compell’d to imbrue his Hands in perhaps innocent Blood. But methinks it well behoves Merchants, Men more enlightened by their Education, and perfectly free from any such Force or Obligation, to consider well of the Justice of a War, before they voluntarily engage a Gang of Ruffians to attack their Fellow Merchants of a neighbouring Nation, to plunder them of their Property, and perhaps ruin them and their Families, if they yield it, or to wound, main and murder them if they endeavour to defend it. Yet these Things are done by Christian Merchants, whether a War be just or unjust; and it can hardly be just on both sides. They are done by English and American Merchants, who nevertheless complain of private Thefts, and hang by Dozens the Thieves they have taught by their own Example.

    It is high time for the sake of Humanity that a Stop be put to this Enormity.” – Benjamin Franklin, one of the original signers of the USAnglo CONstitution

  119. By Glen Cram on 22 May 2011

    As a Canadian, the narrative I have always learned is that 1812 (at least our part of it) was a “legitimate defense of Canada” against US aggression, resulting in a thorough trouncing of the aggressors.

  120. By just a person on 3 June 2011

    OK

    Richard HZ, Seth im sorry you two have never done anything in this world that was worth a piss. you two blast the troops saying what we are doing is wrong and so on. i see you two didn’t put out a point or anything you two just put everyone down. make a point but you two haven’t. To Gonad T Barbarian you said japan never hit main land USA. You need to do some research before you talk. Japan hit the cost line of California with two torpedo’s. And i know your going to say it was just the two but they did hit so you were wrong. just letting you know that. and to Pablo i thought the Colombian blockade killed you. out of all theses people your the worst. Bin laden did it and even your dumb ass friends here know he did it. if you three want we can go over there and get with the terrorists and ill stand back and you three can tell them how much you hate the troops and see if they hug you back. Your not going to like what happens but i would.

  121. By Whatever on 12 August 2011

    I don’t believe in murder

  122. By Whatever on 12 August 2011

    iI don’t believe in canadians, either

  123. By Whatever on 12 August 2011

    And what the fuck is a anarchist? Like someone mentioned earlier, do you guys actually live in the USA? Grow your own food? Produce your own electricity? You guys are weird. And, i guess, probably gay virgin scardey pants. Or something.

  124. By Ronin on 12 August 2011

    @whatever, your comments were good comedy! I suppose you meant to say that you do believe in the tooth fairy, santa claus, and that US Interventionalism (military “protection”) is the honorable spreading of democracy. If so, then you are blatently ignorant of the Founding Fathers strict adherence to nonintervention. It’s ok. You never studied early American history, never read any important documents written by the Founding Fathers. If you HAD, you would understand how horribly WRONG, and UNCONSTITUTIONAL the actions of your governMENTAL leaders are.
    And it really seems the pro-US military types here are truly sexually frustrated. Could it be that most women are attracted to men who value human life? Just saying, from my personal global experience.
    Btw, Bin Laden was trained by CIA. That worked out well for Uncle Sam, huh? US GOV, keeping you “safe”. Much safer elsewhere.

  125. By Whatever on 12 August 2011

    I don’t put a dollar sign on human life, thank you very much. And have you ever seen a history book? They’re HUGE! Who would read those? No, i need war to line my pockets and pay my bills. It’s the new economy. When peace starts paying I’ll…well, probably just bitch. Peace is lame. And George Washington wore a wig, so what does he know

  126. By Whatever on 12 August 2011

    And i honestly doubt you were ever a samurai. I’m like 70% sure of that

  127. By Ronin on 13 August 2011

    @Whatever – Your comments lack any form of logic, which is probably less your fault and more your public school indoctrination(schooled in the 90′s, perhaps?).
    If you consider yourself a warrior of some sort and believe you have a concept of honor, read BUSHIDO (available in simple English, though some nuances are shaded by translation ) and see for yourself how you measure up.
    Yes, history books are huge! Try reading some. Educate yourself. You might actually learn something. And George Washington wore a General ‘s uniform. Read his Presidential Farewell Address (also available online in today’s vernacular ). Again, you might learn something.
    Now, off to school little Johnny.

  128. By Whatever on 14 August 2011

    I don’t think i’m a warrior. i’m a soldier…mostly. And i did go to school in the 90′s. You’re, like, spot on, masterless samurai. And i guess that history taught us that bushido was no match for an atomic bomb.

  129. By Ronin jr (formally whatever) on 14 August 2011

    And george washington had wood teeth. So i’d rather read something from someone with a better concept of oral hygiene. Like a dentist blog. I’m gonna google that later

  130. By Ronin jr (formally whatever) on 14 August 2011

    I punched the US when it was in my face and it hasn’t bothered me since

  131. By Ronin jr (formally whatever) on 14 August 2011

    I’m curious, have any of you ever met a soldier? A current soldier?

  132. By Ronin on 15 August 2011

    @formerly whatever – get your own moniker, how about Soldier of Sam?

    The point you fail to recognize is that by neing a goon of Uncle Sam you(the collective) merely blindly do your foolish masters’ bidding, inciting more unstable, religious extremists to seek to exact revenge on any American thereby very effectively and drastically reducing the safety of American (and other) citizens even within US borders.
    That is precisely WHY 9/11 happened in the first place!
    Wise up and stop being used as a pawn/cannon fodder.
    I also told your Uncle Sam to sod off and divorced his A$$. Now, I’m my own master.
    Have a nice day. Go read a book or five.

  133. By Ronin jr on 17 August 2011

    So now I’m a goon? Name calling, is it? And who got custody of the kids?

  134. By Ronin jr on 17 August 2011

    And soldier of sam just doesn’t have the right amount of gay. But ” Ronin ” is already taken, sad to say. So ronin jr it is. Or maybe lil’ ronin.

  135. By Hokusai on 21 August 2011

    Whatever, no one called you a goon. But if you are a soldier, then by definition it is so.
    Just sayin.

  136. By Hokusai on 21 August 2011

    Whatever, in case you are unaware, Bushido is a code of honor or conduct with many similarities to what once was known as Chivalry.
    Perhaps you meant to say that katana were no match for atom bombs, which is an astute observation. Especially since katana were banned, collected, and most destroyed during the MEIJI Restoration before the turn of the 20th century(1900′s).
    Fact check: Even Gen. Mcarthur was against using the atom bomb.

  137. By Hokusai jr (formally whatever) on 28 August 2011

    how is a soldier a goon?

  138. By Ronin on 28 August 2011

    Ok, by definition from Merriam-Webster online dictionary.

    Main Entry: goon Pronunciation: \ ˈ gün\ Function: noun Etymology: probably short for English dial. gooney simpleton Date: 1921 a stupid person 1 : a stupid person, a man hired to terrorize 2
    a : a man hired to terrorize or eliminate opponents or eliminate opponents b : or eliminate opponents 2b enforcer 2b 2b

    Since a soldier essentially is a trained killer/terrorist, that satisfies the meaning of GOON as a statement of basic fact, not using the term as a pejorative.
    If the shoe fits… Looks, sounds, and acts like a duck…

  139. By HistoriCUSS on 29 August 2011

    “I have long since learned who you [European Christians] are, through others of you who came years ago to my land; and I already know very well what your customs and behavior are like. To me you are professional vagabonds who wander from place to place, gaining your livelihood by robbing, sacking and murdering people who have given you no offense.”

    Little to nothing has changed since the Indian Acuera rebuffed de Soto with those words in 1539. European military is still bent on terrorism to intimidate..remember “Shock and Awe”? Now they bomb Libya to get their hands on African oil supplies, while the ignorant grunts who bleed think it is to protect their families.

    The accounting continues:

    Then apropos of the subject of vassalage and the Governor’s statement that the Spaniards were servants of the Emperor and King of Castile, for whose empire they now were conquering new lands, Acuera retorted: “I should congratulate you warmly [warrior to warrior], but I hold you in even less esteem now that you have confessed that you are servants and that you are working and gaining kingdoms so that another may rule them and enjoy the fruits of your labor. Since in such an undertaking you are suffering hunger, fatigue and other hardships as well as risking your own lives, it would be more to your honor and advantage to acquire things for yourselves and your descendants rather than for someone else. But being so contemptible and as yet unable to rid yourselves of the stigma of servitude, you should never at any time expect friendship from me, for I could not use my friendship so basely.”

  140. By HistoriCUSS on 29 August 2011

    soldiers, stop taking orders from brutes:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcvjoWOwnn4

  141. By Nunya Binness on 29 August 2011

    Well said HistoriCUSS.

  142. By ArmySoldier on 8 September 2011

    Three tours in Iraq and I never sqeezed off a round. I did however bring water and sanitation to villages in need. Delivered shoes to hundreds of children that needed them. During my tours the only time there was ever an engagement it was with Taliban. Most civilian Iraqis I can in contact with wanted us there and were nervous about us leaving. For what ever reason we got there I know that there are people and villages in much better shape because we were. I have read alot of lies being posted here. I am a soldier whom has killed no one. I love the United States and I wish that there was not all this hate and propaganda being published.

  143. By Mike Gogulski on 18 September 2011

    @ArmySoldier: Never “squeezed off” a round? How’d you manage qualify on rifle, then?

    BTW, Taliban in Iraq? You’re cute, but then, you do live in Waco.

  144. By Ronin on 9 January 2012

    Read this article today, so pertinent.
    The title?
    Marines, Why Do You Do This To Your Families?
    Read it here:
    http://lewrockwell.com/vance/vance274.html

    The ending is spot on. Here it is in quotes.

    “Marines, why do you do this to your families?

    Based on the words of various Marines interviewed or talked about in this series, I say to those who made it through what I wish I could also say to twenty-five young men who didn’t:

    If you just wanted to feel the trill of leading men in battle, then shame on you. If you just couldn’t find a job so you enlisted in the Marines, then shame on you. If you just wanted to experience the mental and physical challenge, then shame on you. If you just enlisted because your father was a Marine, then shame on you. If you just wanted to go to war, then shame on you. If you just thought you were defending our freedoms, then shame on you. If you just wanted to die a hero, then shame on you. If you just felt you had to complete the mission, then shame on you. If you just enlisted because you thought your government needed you, then shame on you. If you thought there was just no better job than being a Marine, then shame on you.

    I have no doubt that the Marines of the Darkhorse Battalion fought valiantly. I am not questioning their manhood, courage, or determination. But I also have no doubt that each of the deaths of those twenty-five Marines from the Darkhorse Battalion was preventable, unnecessary, and senseless.

    Lance Cpl. Josue Barron, who lost an eye, a leg, and some of his close friends, at the end of a discussion about whether everything that happened in Afghanistan was “worth it,” said: “It was worth it. If I say it wasn’t worth it, what about my friends that died? I’m disrespecting them, like they died for nothing.”

    Sorry, Josue, as much as you may not want to face it, and no matter how many times you tell yourself that it was “worth it,” your friends died in vain just like those unfortunate U.S. soldiers who died in Iraq. Likewise, the only thing that the Marines in Afghanistan died for was a lie.

    The most maddening and depressing thing out of all that I have heard from this series on the Darkhorse Battalion is the closing paragraph from Tom Bowman’s 50-minute report:

    Darkhorse Battalion will deploy again sometime next year, but this time they’re going on what’s known as a Marine Expeditionary Unit. They’ll head on ships across the Pacific making port calls and being ready for anything from a humanitarian disaster to a rescue operation. The families are relived, but many of the Marines we spoke with just want to go back to Afghanistan.

    Go back to Afghanistan? Marines, why do you do this to your families? I plead with you to heed the words of U.S. Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler (1881-1940), a two-time Congressional Medal of Honor winner who came to the conclusion that:

    War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

    Shame on you for putting the Marines above your families. Shame on you for making a god out of the Marines.”

    January 9, 2012

    Laurence M. Vance

  145. By Freethinker. on 19 January 2012

    Thank fuck for people like you.

    Freethinkers are dangerous.

    Fuck the troops and fuck those that support the troops.

    Thanks for the article.

  146. By RONIN on 29 March 2012

    Lest we forget the duplicities of the military, we should remain vigilant against the creep of the root of militarism.
    The following link is an excellent article showing the abuse of conscriptees by The Bass-turds in DC:

    http://www.fredoneverything.net/shitheap.shtml

  147. By Dan on 14 October 2012

    The only sin any Soldier ever committed by following the order to board a plane for war is having the intestinal fortitude to honor the solemn oath he made to put his life on the line, that others might live. He has the courage you spineless weasels lack. He will make the sacrifices necessary to defend your right to spew your ignorance. Continue to cower in your corners behind the shield that is the American Soldier and sling your slurs at him. He is far too selfless to even hear them, he’s too busy watching the other direction for danger. So, on behalf of him, and his family, too preocupied with defending your cowardly asses to acknowledge your pitiful existence, I say…Fuck You All!

  148. By Wait a tick.. on 13 November 2012

    What if there was a war and none of the soldiers on either side decided to show up?

  149. By don hevel on 20 May 2013

    I think it is important that this string stay alive, especially as long as the murdering and raping fuckers are overseas. I cannot scream loud enough FUCK THE TROOPS, especially this close to fucking memorial day. We should be celebrating each time another comes back in a box. Fuck them all.

  150. By historiCUSS on 20 May 2013

    Let us not forget…
    the troops are victims too.
    That does not relieve them of all responsibility for their actions, as much as the master wishes it to be so.
    The USA is out of Iraq because even the puppet government it installed could no longer tolerate war crimes, mass murder of women and children and other innocents and give immunity to the troops. It was the demand that the soldiers be accountable that resulted in the withdrawal of the USA.

    What we have to understand is the methodology used by the manipulators and the mindset of the minions that allows them to be misled. If we are to bring change and justice, we must understand both of these factors and more.

    Altemeyer has a most interesting take on this, picking up where Milgram left off:

    http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

    It was the soldiers themselves that to a large extent stopped the war against the Vietnamese, often fragging their command officers in protest.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir!_No_Sir!

  151. By Alex on 19 June 2013

    All of you idiots here railing against this man for opposing the power structure ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

    You’re nothing more than shills for the military industrial complex. Don’t you understand that power seeks more power? Don’t you understand that all governments are lairs and murderers?

    All of you drinking the Kool-Aid of the state, such as Dan, ArmySoldier and more, need to realize that your thoughts play into everything that the government has brainwashed you to believe. You are siding with power because it’s the easy thing to do. It’s always easy to give up your individuality and join an army, wave a flag and spout propaganda.

    You can say whatever you like. You are the devolution of humankind into pathetic murderers who take the orders of the state as the word of God. The mentality of the soldier has led to unfathomable crimes in human history. Just because you immatruly see yourself as the ‘good guys’ doesn’t mean it’s true. At all.

    Sure, ‘fuck the troops’ is not the best way to get the message across, but the evil of rampant militarism is bound to create vast frustration.

    This country is clearly finished, and for further insight into this kind of stuff, I highly recommend the ideas of George Carlin, Bill Hicks, Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn and Edward Said.

  1. 5 Trackback(s)

  2. 16 June 2008: What is murder? | nostate.com
  3. 4 October 2008: The BoBo of The Week Award - The weekend edition | The BoBo Files
  4. 4 October 2008: Imagine my shock… and awe! | nostate.com
  5. 5 October 2008: No peace in Paxville | nostate.com
  6. 29 October 2008: A Memorial Day tribute to police state supporters | nostate.com

    comments rss Comments RSS

Post a Comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Core Dogma

  • LinkWorth

  • Other groovy stuff