So what SHOULD we call them?

L. Reichard White, February 08, 2013

The military-industrial establishment now calls U.S. soldiers “warfighters.” The problem is, they’re not fighting wars anymore. The U.S. hasn’t been legally at war since September 12, 1945 when the Japanese forces in Southeast Asia surrendered to Allied Commander Louis Mountbatten in Singapore, ending World War II.

So, since they’re not warfighters, what should we call them?




17 Responses to “So what SHOULD we call them?”

  1. That these acts of aggression conducted outside of US borders are unconstitutional by US law does not prevent the funding or implementation of these acts of war. Therefore, they are still warriors. However, we could, more accurately, call them US economic and foreign policy enforcers.

  2. Terrorists.

  3. Imperial stormtroopers? Instruments of oppresion? World police? A global force for good?

  4. "dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy" – Kissinger

  5. Whores that would commit any disgusting act for money.

    "He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my
    contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the
    spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be
    done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, and all the
    loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism, how violently I hate
    all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to
    shreds than be part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing
    under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."
    - Albert Einstein

  6. Mercenaries? Official mercenaries on the taxpayer dime? Legions of Empire? Foot soldiers in the Obama Crusades? Amoral zombies?

  7. All of the epithets contributed by the readership here apply.

  8. "Soldiers" – that is what the Mafia calls it's hitmen

  9. How about American Taliban?

  10. >So, since they’re not warfighters, what should we call them?
    aw man, I knew there'd be some good answers to that question!
    How about "pre-disposed drones", "PTSD assets/liabilities with nametags (PAWNs)" or "democracy helpers"?

  11. No, too insulting to the real Taliban.

  12. IF wars not legal THEN participants = criminals; into gaol or hanging.
    IF wars not legal THEN killers = murderers.
    IF wars for resources THEN murdering to steal.
    IF wars by democracies THEN electorate to blame – except:
    IF wars bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic THEN electorate given no choice.
    IF electorate lied to THEN liars to gaol (politicians, apologists, MSM + PFBCs (publicly-financed broadcasters, like the AusBC); see line #1).

    Zionism (latest post-Jabotinsky, ’23) = permanent, aggressive, resource war = murder for soil.

    US (latest Memo PPS23 by George Kennan, February 28, 1948) = permanent, aggressive, resource wars = murder for spoil mostly oil, but see Blum, “Killing Hope,” “Rogue State;” samples from 1893 (Hawaii, 1st regime-change), 1953+ (Guatemala, CIA for United Fruit) = appalling lists then since 9/11, 2001 Afghanistan = pipeline-routes, US hegemony, 2003 Iraq, 2012 Libya & Iran to come, spoil + revenge, Syria = ‘road to Tehran’ + aiding Zs.

    After the perpetrators, the worst aspect is no effective resistance to these tyrannical murderers to steal.

  13. Personalize it: http://borg.thatdorkjordan.com/

    I guess the question and some responses get me thinking that maybe someone's working on another Spitter-Myth. This time the web 'documents' it.

  14. Correction: The Nuremberg-class attack on Libya was initiated by Sarkozy jumping the gun on 20Mar’11, and Muammar Gaddafi was lynched on 20Oct’11. Both China and Russia bear part-responsibility for the horrid F+UK/NATO rapine of Libya since they ‘allowed’ = failed to veto UNSC1973.

  15. i think murderers works fine, although if i want to be a little generous, mercenaries

  16. All of the epithets contributed by the readership here apply.

  17. @persnipoles: “… that maybe someone’s working on another Spitter-Myth.”

    I’m presuming that any “Spitter-Myth” is associated with service-persons returning from the (mainly) US war against Vietnam; a different time to now at least because of a) conscription vs. all volunteer, and b) MSM-news-gatekeepers vs. internet – now we can have an open debate about individual responsibility.

    The 1st Q that arises is: Cui bono? = who would benefit?

    A: Only pro-wars. Denigrating anti-war protestors is not new.

    Latest since the analysis of the illegal, Nuremberg-class invasion of Iraq in 2003 *proves* the criminality of the US-rogue-regime, now since Obama continues many GWBush policies plural US-rogue-regimes, we can say that no order those rogue-regimes give can be considered legal, so any US service-persons killing people are murdering them – what I already said above.

    Summary: Lies are deployed to deceive; deceit is used to try to mask crime – such as resource-wars = murdering to steal (also see Zionists squatting on land stolen by actual violence in Palestine.)

    Illegality of orders negates both sides of any ‘Nuremberg-defence’ debate, so it’s down to the individual service person. Take drone-operators; as well as the illegality of the orders, some estimates of ‘drone-effectiveness’ put the proportion of ‘innocent collaterals’ as high as 98%.

    Note that this is based on ~2% ‘legitimate’ targets, but when those targets are natives defending their homelands against illegal invaders, only those defenders may have legitimacy.

    Now join the dots … let me propose an extension to the debate about individual responsibility; *all* those who observe a crime in progress *and* do not do their utmost to *stop* the crime, make themselves partly responsible = assume part-guilt for the crime and damage caused, by the accessory principle.