Helping to lose

[metadigital]

Feel free to disagree.  I don't expect to speak for the "correct moral attitude," as I don't believe that such a position is possible in this context.  To me, supporting the troops while not supporting the war is an impossible position - a contradiction at best, hypocrisy at worst.  If you take this position, then we are in fundamental disagreement, and I do not think that this is a disagreement that can be resolved on this board.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't see why the decisions of political leaders need to affect your respect of the people who are tasked with carrying them out. I respect the workmanship of a rifle seperately to the horror and disdain I feel for some deranged killer who uses it to murder a school bus full of children, for example.

 

In point of fact, the US armed forces (for that is what I am sure you are talking about here) advised AGAINST military action in Iraq (as they generally do): people who have experience with conflict are usually (barring psychological impairment) the last ones to advocate it as a solution, and always as the last option.

Oh, and to answer Walsingham's original question as to what would make me support the troops, I think it's pretty obvious where my perspective leads -

 

If they're fighting a war that I support, then I can fully support them.  But then, if such a war existed, I'd probably be fighting in it, one way or another.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What would you have the soldiers do, I wonder? Mass insubordination? Perhaps raise a motion to reverse the military decisions? Overthow a decision of the democratically elected leaders of their country, perhaps? A military coup?

[alanschu]

In the first world wars, troops had so much support that the people of their country of origin were starving in a major depression because all the ressources were diverted for the military to support the war and the troops.

 

The Great Depression was, sadly, ended because of World War 2. People were starving in a major depression before the conflict began, for a full decade.

 

 

Indeed.

 

Although I meant rationing, not depression(my bad).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't think people were really "starving" either. I could maybe see the UK, but that might be understandable given that they had mandatory blackouts at night since they were being bombed daily during the Battle of Britain.

 

The rationing in the US was started because the government didn't want the wealthy to be able to purchase the majority of the food. It is kind of a neat read because recycling was introduced because saving an aluminum can mean more aluminum for the war effort and so on.

[Colrom]

My heart aches for our soldiers.  They are doing a job they believe a worthy one.  When it comes to Afghanistan, they've already had the rug pulled out from under them.  It was a rug called "Iraq", and they have now seen their governments fail them twice... first when not enough boots were on the ground to complete their primary mission thereby allowing bin Laden and most of Al Qaeda to escape, and then when a huge number of those "boots" were reassigned to invade another country.  Now they see all that their blood and sweat accomplished years back evaporating.  The Taliban is regaining control; bin Laden continues to direct his terror operations; and Iraq has become a bloody graveyard of chaos and never-ending conflict.

 

My heart truly aches for our soldiers, for their lost youth, their sacrifice, their pain.  I support them.  I support the brave Brits, the brave Americans, the brave coalition troops who give everything they have for a cause they hope is just, even if much of the world.... including myself when it comes to Iraq... disagrees.

 

Then again, I'm old enough to remember VietNam, where youths went to war and old men returned, spit upon and reviled by those they had thought they were fighting for.  I would die in their place if it would bring them all home safe.  But this is a world where life is not sacred any more.  Maybe it never was, but I miss the comforting cocoon of my long-lost naivete.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I would like to see our troops in Iraq leave. We have caused alot of harm there and have the responsibility for that. But we have no proper authority to do anything there other than leave and on our way out say "We are so sorry we destroyed your country and killed your people and we will be leaving now and please accept this gift of 600 billion dollars as inadaquate compensation for the harm we have done." We can also put the right people here in jail where they belong.

 

I would like to see our troops in Afganistan working under Nato given whatever it takes to hunt down that bastard Osama so we can put him in jail too.

 

Those things would honor our troops.

 

But as it stands now what folks mostly mean by supporting our troops is making sure that they don't come home and that we go on living the good life in teh meantime.

[Azarkon]

You say that you're not the one making things black and white, and then state unequivocally, that people enlist in the military so that they can fight in wars, or are otherwise deceived and tragic characters.

 

Wars are not black and white. Rationality, however, can be binary. Still, I don't pretend people don't join the military for other reasons; I'm just saying that in the specific situation mentioned by the statement I quoted, I consider them to be tragic characters.

 

I don't see why the decisions of political leaders need to affect your respect of the people who are tasked with carrying them out.

 

Respect has nothing to do with it. Support the troops != respect the troops. I already said that I respected the troops as individuals, but I do not support them. The same is true if I say that I respect any man willing to die for what he believes in, but that I do not necessarily support him.

 

Saying that the military disagreed with what was done but was forced into doing it because, well, the military obeys orders is a fair point that might, under certain circumstances, absolve them of responsibility. But that still doesn't mean I can support what they're doing. Like I said before, I don't think that you can divide the situation into "I hate the war" but "I support the troops cause they're just following orders!" If you support the troops in a volunteer army, then you support what they're doing. Otherwise, you're not really supporting them - that's my view.

 

What would you have the soldiers do, I wonder? Mass insubordination? Perhaps raise a motion to reverse the military decisions? Overthow a decision of the democratically elected leaders of their country, perhaps? A military coup?

 

Quit the service, if they really feel so strongly about the war being wrong.

 

I do not believe in an amoral, depersonalized army that simply does what it's told - assigning others all the responsibility of right and wrong. I do think that people should join the military based on whether they believe in its cause, and not simply because of some abstraction notion of "duty" to a potentially corrupt government. However, coops/insubordination are not the way to go as methods of rebellion as it sets a precedent for military rule. The best way to act, therefore, is simply for individuals to quit the service (and to do so as individuals, instead of "mass boycotting," which is just another way of putting power in the hands of the military).

[~Di]

 

I would like to see our troops in Iraq leave. We have caused alot of harm there and have the responsibility for that. But we have no proper authority to do anything there other than leave and on our way out say "We are so sorry we destroyed your country and killed your people and we will be leaving now and please accept this gift of 600 billion dollars as inadaquate compensation for the harm we have done." We can also put the right people here in jail where they belong.

 

I would like to see our troops in Afganistan working under Nato given whatever it takes to hunt down that bastard Osama so we can put him in jail too.

 

Those things would honor our troops.

 

I agree. Everything I predicted before we invaded Iraq has come to pass. I take no joy in that, because I think anyone with two brain cells to rub together simply MUST have known that innocents and our soldiers would die by the thousands, that chaos and civil war would kill tens of thousands more innocents, and that Iraq as a nation would be destroyed.

 

At first I believed the "we broke it, we own it, we fix it" theory. It soon become obvious that we were incapable of fixing anything. The Iraqis want us out. Only the arrogance and unbridled gall of our leaders prevents us from honoring their wishes.

 

 

But as it stands now what folks mostly mean by supporting our troops is making sure that they don't come home and that we go on living the good life in teh meantime.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That is certainly not what I mean. Our troops are there because they have been given jobs to do. Many of those jobs (the ones we don't hear about) are basically positive; rebuilding schools and hospitals, etc. Others are more difficult... trying to keep religious enemies from slaughtering each other while trying to keep oneself and ones fellow soldiers alive. So yes, I support those soldiers, I support their courage and their effort even if I do not support the policies or the leaders who have put them there.

[~Di]

...

Quit the service, if they really feel so strongly about the war being wrong.

 

I do not believe in an amoral, depersonalized army that simply does what it's told - assigning others all the responsibility of right and wrong.  I do think that people should join the military based on whether they believe in its cause, and not simply because of some abstraction notion of "duty" to a potentially corrupt government.  However, coops/insubordination are not the way to go as methods of rebellion as it sets a precedent for military rule.  The best way to act, therefore, is simply for individuals to quit the service (and to do so as individuals, instead of "mass boycotting," which is just another way of putting power in the hands of the military).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Then I respectfully suggest you do yourself what you are suggesting these individuals do... give up your own life to enforce your belief. Because that is basically what you are saying, that if these individuals do not sacrifice themeselves and their future to decades in prison or worse, then they are unworthy of respect and support.

 

So go ahead. Present yourself to be imprisoned for the next few decades. Otherwise, you should not be so flippant to insist others do what you yourself are unwilling to do.

[metadigital]

The Iraqis want us out.  Only the arrogance and unbridled gall of our leaders prevents us from honoring their wishes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

~Di, just curious how you know this is a fact.

 

Last time I checked, the democratically-electeed government of Iraq was able to ask/tell the coalition of forces to leave whenever they wanted, and they haven't as yet.

[Walsingham]

Couple of things:

 

1) People who have a go at the US military and their attitudes have rarely met anyone above pfc grade. Don't confuse the people reporters like to show off with how they actually are. They can be gung ho, but very often that is more an expression of courage than stupidity.

 

2) We can't just apologise and wander off. Nor can we hand over "600 bilion USD". Hand it over to whom?

 

3) If, as you claim the Iraqis want us out, who are you to judge rather than their democratically elected leaders?

 

~~

 

I see us as talking around the topic, and we are often on the button with relating this directly to support for the troops.

 

As I see it, most people here are saying that they can't support the troops without supporting the mission of the troops. In the case of Afghanistan in particular I don't understand what it is that is objectionable about the mission. Therefore I ask again why our troops do not feel supported.

 

EDIT: On a related point, I should observe that feeling we cannot win, expressing that as a desire to bug out DIRECTLY supports the insurgents. It actively encourages them to commmit more acts of violence the more they see us wavering.

[Colrom]

Couple of things:

 

1) People who have a go at the US military and their attitudes have rarely met anyone above pfc grade. Don't confuse the people reporters like to show off with how they actually are. They can be gung ho, but very often that is more an expression of courage than stupidity.

 

2) We can't just apologise and wander off. Nor can we hand over "600 bilion USD". Hand it over to whom?

 

3) If, as you claim the Iraqis want us out, who are you to judge rather than their democratically elected leaders?

 

~~

 

I see us as talking around the topic, and we are often on the button with relating this directly to support for the troops.

 

As I see it, most people here are saying that they can't support the troops without supporting the mission of the troops. In the case of Afghanistan in particular I don't understand what it is that is objectionable about the mission. Therefore I ask again why our troops do not feel supported.

 

EDIT: On a related point, I should observe that feeling we cannot win, expressing that as a desire to bug out DIRECTLY supports the insurgents. It actively encourages them to commmit more acts of violence the more they see us wavering.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Don't threaten people, Walsingham, with your rediculous bogus judgements and accusations of direct support for insurgents. :crazy:

 

This thread is a farce. :angry:

[alanschu]

I wouldn't exactly say you are innocent of that. You were essentially calling people racists for not agreeing on your point of view in the Religion in the workplace thread.

 

I mean, we were just doing our part to help spread and foster hatred, in your own words.

 

Let's get off the high horse before you go around accusing people of making ridiculous statements.

[metadigital]

As I see it, most people here are saying that they can't support the troops without supporting the mission of the troops. In the case of Afghanistan in particular I don't understand what it is that is objectionable about the mission. Therefore I ask again why our troops do not feel supported.

 

EDIT: On a related point, I should observe that feeling we cannot win, expressing that as a desire to bug out DIRECTLY supports the insurgents. It actively encourages them to commmit more acts of violence the more they see us wavering.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't threaten people, Walsingham, with your rediculous bogus judgements and accusations of direct support for insurgents. :crazy:

 

This thread is a farce. :angry:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not sure why you are missing the very valid point (I have highlighted it for you!) )

[Azarkon]

Then I respectfully suggest you do yourself what you are suggesting these individuals do... give up your own life to enforce your belief.  Because that is basically what you are saying, that if these individuals do not sacrifice themeselves and their future to decades in prison or worse, then they are unworthy of respect and support. 

 

So go ahead.  Present yourself to be imprisoned for the next few decades.  Otherwise, you should not be so flippant to insist others do what you yourself are unwilling to do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If the draft comes over an evil war, that's exactly what I'll do. But why would I commit a crime now to enforce my beliefs? That is a ridiculous request, and in no way "respectful."

 

Quitting the service - or not enlisting in the first place - is a perfectly reasonable option for people who were not tied to the service to begin with, and incurs no penalty of imprisonment (certainly I've known plenty of people who refused to join the military over their beliefs). For those who were tied when the war occured, going to war is perhaps their only option, and I doubt any of them feels strongly enough about the war to evade duty, so all I can say is - I respect their decision, but do not support them. Same rhetoric.

 

You're letting your emotions get the better of you, I'm afraid.

Edited November 24, 2006 by Azarkon

[alanschu]

If the draft comes over an evil war, that's exactly what I'll do.

 

Why would you need to wait for the draft?

[Azarkon]

Why would you need to wait for the draft?

 

To do what?

 

If a draft comes and I don't believe in the war, I'll evade it - thus incurring whatever penalties thereof. I assume this is what Di means by prison time, as I can't see how a non-enlisted individual could go to prison for refusing the service in any other circumstance.

 

If a draft does not come, and I don't believe in the war, I will refuse to condone it, protest it when appropriate, refuse to support the troops who are fighting in it, and refuse to enlist in the military.

Edited November 25, 2006 by Azarkon

[alanschu]

Err, I misunderstood what you said.

 

I thought you were saying "when the draft comes for an evil war" I took "evil" as being a war worth fighting, such as some actual "evil" is threatening your country.

[Azarkon]

Oh.

 

Now that I think of it, evil is not exactly the right adjective for this war. Foolish and unnecessary is more like it. One does not defeat an organization based upon hatred for the US by stirring up even more hatred, but that's a discussion for another thread.

[Lucius]

As I see it, most people here are saying that they can't support the troops without supporting the mission of the troops. In the case of Afghanistan in particular I don't understand what it is that is objectionable about the mission. Therefore I ask again why our troops do not feel supported.

 

EDIT: On a related point, I should observe that feeling we cannot win, expressing that as a desire to bug out DIRECTLY supports the insurgents. It actively encourages them to commmit more acts of violence the more they see us wavering.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't threaten people, Walsingham, with your rediculous bogus judgements and accusations of direct support for insurgents. :crazy:

 

This thread is a farce. :angry:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not sure why you are missing the very valid point (I have highlighted it for you!) )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Even more interesting, why is this thread a farce?

[Colrom]

I wouldn't exactly say you are innocent of that.  You were essentially calling people racists for not agreeing on your point of view in the Religion in the workplace thread.

 

I mean, we were just doing our part to help spread and foster hatred, in your own words.

 

Let's get off the high horse before you go around accusing people of making ridiculous statements.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes - all those things are true.

 

I will stay on my "high horse" because I think it is the right place to be.

 

The terms of reference of this thread - good guys, bad guys, friends, enemies, patriotism, treason, authority, insurgent, are all chosen by Lord Walsy according to his views.

 

I am disgusted by that group who drape themselves in the flag and wrap themselves in the valor of our soldiers to proclaim the rightousness of a path of war that they support - and they find dead soldiers the best for this purpose - and then when they are finished using the soldiers or when the live soldiers decide that they are finished being used these flag draped self proclaimed patriots throw their regard for the soldiers to the ground and wipe their feet on them or even Swift Boat them.

 

I remember some soldiers who opposed a war that I supported - but when they were killed in that war some of those who supported the war decided that their dead soldier friends and children would be said to have supported the war because that was a more convenient memory for them - and they knew that was a lie.

 

The soldiers will have to take heart that we care enough about policiy to debate it. In the end when wars end those who remain alive will all be happy to be alive if nothing else. We cannot continue wars forever just to satisfy some peoples pride.

[alanschu]

I will stay on my "high horse" because I think it is the right place to be.

 

I'd personally prefer it if you didn't start tossing out racist accusations to people that disagree with you (including the ones that were actually part of that race) while you were on that high horse. Same goes with stereotyping people into "mobs" (again, your words) because they disagree with you.

 

Enjoy your "high horse," as I wouldn't want anything to do with it. I prefer to associate myself with people that aren't gigantic hypocrites, and that also think they know better about a person than that person themselves. In case it isn't to painfully clear, I'm talking about you when I say this.

 

This will undoubtedly be reported as a flame, and probably even be deleted. But if you think the right place to be is in a position where you feel so enlightened that you are more capable of making interpretations and decisions for an entire race of people that you don't belong to, then I pity you. When you then accuse other people of using similar arguments and getting all up in a huff about it, going on the defensive, then I just loathe you. Perhaps you could say that I am disgusted (to again use your words).

 

 

Even more interesting, why is this thread a farce?

 

It's a farce because Colrom, yet again, feels that someone else's opinion and interpretation of reality are wrong. These views do not coincide with his, and make an extrapolation that his (in)actions could be seen as support for something that is wrong (the supporting of insurgents that is). Since these views do not coincide with how he sees the world, this thread is naturally a farce.

 

To save metadigital the link, you could probably make a stretch to this.

 

Enjoy this post while you can

Edited November 25, 2006 by alanschu

[Lucius]

Well in case you think it'll be deleted, I'll confirm that I've read it.

[thepixiesrock]

I don't want to believe that someone would say the things Colrom says without intentionally trying to be a troll.

[Colrom]

I will stay on my "high horse" because I think it is the right place to be.

 

I'd personally prefer it if you didn't start tossing out racist accusations to people that disagree with you (including the ones that were actually part of that race) while you were on that high horse. Same goes with stereotyping people into "mobs" (again, your words) because they disagree with you.

 

Enjoy your "high horse," as I wouldn't want anything to do with it. I prefer to associate myself with people that aren't gigantic hypocrites, and that also think they know better about a person than that person themselves. In case it isn't to painfully clear, I'm talking about you when I say this.

 

This will undoubtedly be reported as a flame, and probably even be deleted. But if you think the right place to be is in a position where you feel so enlightened that you are more capable of making interpretations and decisions for an entire race of people that you don't belong to, then I pity you. When you then accuse other people of using similar arguments and getting all up in a huff about it, going on the defensive, then I just loathe you. Perhaps you could say that I am disgusted (to again use your words).

 

 

Even more interesting, why is this thread a farce?

 

It's a farce because Colrom, yet again, feels that someone else's opinion and interpretation of reality are wrong. These views do not coincide with his, and make an extrapolation that his (in)actions could be seen as support for something that is wrong (the supporting of insurgents that is). Since these views do not coincide with how he sees the world, this thread is naturally a farce.

 

To save metadigital the link, you could probably make a stretch to this.

 

Enjoy this post while you can

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You are putting words in my mouth. We can resurrect the thread about the veils and the crosses if you would like. I think you are misrepresenting my comments.

 

I have never claimed to read your mind and probably never will. But I will characterize actions and talk about what "some folks" think or do - or claim to think to think or do. You might have included yourself in some group like that. I don't know.

 

By the way, I don't understand how it matters if I am a Muslim or Arab - except perhaps in regard to having direct experience? Do I need to be an eagle to have views on how eagles should be treated, or a mushroom to have views on how mushrooms should be treated?

 

I don't know why you would suggest I am a hypocrite. I try to stick close to Christian values. I walk the walk as best I can. But - as you know - I do have a problem with personal pride and being overly judgemental.

 

But this thread is about a different topic - mostly - I think.

 

My "farce" comment relates to the highlighted phrase "DIRECTLY supports the insurgents" which moves this thread closer to an veiled ( ) suggestion that those who speak against the war may be subject to investigation and legal consequence steming from the current homeland security laws in the US.

 

That's why I talked about "threatening".

[~Di]

The Iraqis want us out.  Only the arrogance and unbridled gall of our leaders prevents us from honoring their wishes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

~Di, just curious how you know this is a fact.

 

Last time I checked, the democratically-electeed government of Iraq was able to ask/tell the coalition of forces to leave whenever they wanted, and they haven't as yet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Every poll of the citizenry shows that the people want us out. Citizens believe that our presence is exascerbating the problem; several military leaders have publicly agreed, much to the chagrin of the whitehouse. Also, there is disagreement inside the "government" of Iraq... I use that term loosely because despite being elected, these officials are working more like individual despots than a cohesive congressional body... and several of those elected officials have stated repeatedly that they wish the US out, and out now.

 

I'm surprised you haven't seen film footage of some of those Iraqi officials on CNN. I certainly have seen several such incidents over the past year or so.

 

That is what I based my statement on... published polls of the Iraqi people, and repeated statements by various Iraqi officials, both on camera and quoted by various news media.

[~Di]

Quitting the service is a perfectly reasonable option for people who were not tied to the service to begin with, and incurs no penalty of imprisonment (certainly I've known plenty of people who refused to join the military over their beliefs).  For those who were tied when the war occured, going to war is perhaps their only option, and I doubt any of them feels strongly enough about  the war to evade duty, so all I can say is - I respect their decision, but do not support them.  Same rhetoric.

 

You've expanded your initial post. At first you made the flat statement that if a soldier disagreed with a particular mission, he/she should simply "quit the service." That statement was ludicrous, since most people understand that one does not simply "quit the service." That is called going AWOL and is a court-marshal offense. It appeared to me you expected soldiers by the tens of thousands to simply present themselves for court marshal and spend a few years in the brig before you would personally support them.

 

You're letting your emotions get the better of you, I'm afraid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ah, of course. Being female, my pesky emotions just keep cropping up. Thankfully there is usually a big, strong, emotionless-and-therefore-superior male around to publicly point out such flaws.

[Azarkon]

You've expanded your initial post.  At first you made the flat statement that if a soldier disagreed with a particular mission, he/she should simply "quit the service."  That statement was ludicrous, since most people understand that one does not simply "quit the service."  That is called going AWOL and is a court-marshal offense.  It appeared to me you expected soldiers by the tens of thousands to simply present themselves for court marshal and spend a few years in the brig before you would personally support them. 

 

That is still true. Support and respect are two different things. Soldiers make their decisions as necessary and I'll respect those decisions if they're reasonable; doesn't mean I will support what they're doing - and hence them - in a war.

 

The only way to get my support is to not fight in the war - ie to quit the service, regardless of the consequences. That does not mean that only soldiers who quit the service & face court marshal are worthy of my respect, or that I think that this is practical or reasonable for them to do - it's simply the fact of the matter in terms of how much I can support soldiers in a bad war.

 

Though, to be fair, people don't usually join the military during peacetime because they support/disagree with a future war, and by the time they can make that decision it's too late. But that's the problem with keeping around a professional army. I assume that soldiers who partake in such service know what they're getting into - and have weighed the moral consequences. I assume, with even more certainty, that people who choose to enlist in the army after the war's started are confident that their moral choice is correct. That is why I cannot support them - because I do not think that they're fighting for the right reasons (at least in the case of Iraq).

 

It's true that many soldiers block out the whole "killing people" aspect and focus on the "helping people" side of things when deciding whether to join the war, however. This is unfortunate, as it's the reason good people fight in bad wars. But then again, the Army is not the Red Cross - people should've been aware of that when joining.

 

Ah, of course.  Being female, my pesky emotions just keep cropping up.  Thankfully there is usually a big, strong, emotionless-and-therefore-superior male around to publicly point out such flaws. 

 

Who said anything about gender? Males are just as capable of allowing emotions to get the better of them, and if you think I meant anything other than what I said, think again. Gender does not factor into it, nor this discussion.

Edited November 26, 2006 by Azarkon