I tend to agree with what I see as the OP’s point…that there is an expectation that you will fall out all over yourself and get all choked up with respect over veterans. I understand, and he seems to as well, that their service is necessary…but it’s a necessary evil, not something someone should be afforded automatic respect for, because there are people who do it for the wrong reasons. It’s not something that automatically respectable, never mind automatically so respectable that civilians should feel pressured to fall out in a frenzy of flag-waving and flower-tossing over these people’s career choice.
:dubious:
I find it extremely interesting that you would choose that quote, considering the entire discussion preceding it was Polonius telling Laertes, “Do this, do that, act like this, act like that, be this, be that” and ends up with, in essence, “But be yourself!” In Polonius’s mind, it’s about Being True To Yourself after you Do What You’re Supposed To Do.
And you know what, I’m OK with that.
Why are you asking for a reason then? You are very confusing…
-XT
Once again.
Some soldiers fight for just causes, such as protecting the freedoms of their country. They put teir lives on the line to protect their family and friends. And those people I can respect.
Other soldiers are willing to fight unjust causes, simply for personal benefits they will gain from it. You will admit there are some like that. Those are the ones I question. I don’t respect those people at all. Should I?
You are mistaken. Telling someone that their argument is worthless may be the intent of “you’re just full of shit,” but the words denigrate the person, even when couched in a conditional.
And
Calling another poster a kiss ass outside the Pit is not appropriate, either. If you truly think there is no point in further participation, then you might want to stop posting to this thread.
Beyond that, I think the question is a little out of line and a lot pointless:
- The values that Peter Morris uses to decide when another person believes that a war is unjust probably do not conform to many other posters’ values and so any citation he provided would be immediately hijacked into an argument over whether he understood the situation.
- Since I really do not see the point of having one poster lodging accusations of unethical behavior at other posters while in GD, asking him to provide citations of people against whom he would lodge such accusations would lead directly to him violating my admonition. (I do not think that that was your intent, but that would be the result)
The entire text of the statement on which Peter Morris has built his discussion was “he doesn’t agree with the ways the government has utilized the military. (Read: he doesn’t support our current Iraq policy.)” That is it. The statement is in reference to a troubled kid who has demonstrated both a perceptive approach to philosophical issues and an utter lack of awareness regarding the real world, so we really do not know how deeply held his opinions might be and, IMNSHO, Peter Morris has built an enormous edifice (regarding the actions in that thread) on a base of sand. Having gone to that thread and read it, it is my belief that Peter leaped a Grand Canyon of logic to arrive at his opinions regarding the poster’s son and the actions and words of the several posters.
That said, his basic argument is one that might be worth pursuing, but it can be carried out without pointing to the words and actions of anyone on this board other than words posted to this thread.
[ /Moderating ]
The OP asks the question ‘give me a reason to respect the military’. I see nothing in there about ‘a frenzy of flag-waving and flower-tossing over these people’s career choice’, but ‘I invite military supporters to explain why this career choice is an honourable one’. The OP invites ‘military supporters’ to explain why the career choice is ‘honorable’…and asks for a reason to respect the military.
Multiple reasons have been given for at least some marginal respect (or at least acknowledgment) for the military, and by extension those who choose to server…not the least of which is it’s those very folks who ensure (through their service) the OP’s (and everyone else’s) freedom. Not exactly a small thing and I think not something that it should be unreasonable to at least acknowledge the benefits of to society. Does this include your ‘frenzy of flag-waving and flower-tossing’? Of course not…that’s your strawman.
The OP seems to have a problem with the fact that our soldiers are paid…or is under the impression that this royal sum is some kind of major draw for people looking to military service from a financial perspective, and that most if not all are in it strictly for the pay. I remember a joke when I was in the Navy…if you can’t take a joke you shouldn’t have joined! This was usually used in conjunction with talk of the ridiculous pay, long hours and sundry other difficulties involved in military service.
I see this as the same basic mistake people made during Vietnam…that of blaming the military instead of the folks who are really at fault. And who is ultimately at fault? Why…we are. We chose the government who actually decided where those boys (and girls) are going to fight and die. THEY don’t decide that…the government does. The same government that We The People choose…and who exercises our collective will.
-XT
And you have some magic way of discerning all of the complex reasons for every person who has joined the military? Or you just assume the worse until the individual somehow proves themselves worth of your much sought after respect? You decide to paint with a rather broad brush based on some pretty irrational reasons…don’t you think?
Well…let’s parse this statement, shall we? First off…who decides which causes are just or unjust? Definded how exactly? Based on what? Do you decide what is just or unjust? Do I? What does it mean exactly…is there a common definition of a just cause? And unjust one?
Moving on…soldiers don’t get to choose which causes the will or won’t fight for. They go where they are sent and they hope that the civilian leadership knows what the fuck they are doing when they send them…and ultimately that we, the citizens knew what the fuck WE were doing when we elected them.
As for gain…it’s clear you don’t have a clue what you are talking about. Most soldiers don’t join up for the princely sums they pay them. You seem to be operating (without any proofs, cites or even logic) under a misconception of just what most soldiers make. Even officers don’t make all that much when compared to civilians in equal positions of authority.
Here is the thing…you are attempting to paint the entire military with a strawman of your own construction, based on, frankly, your own ignorance of both the military and the folks who serve in it…and then asking the loaded question of if you should respect them since they are all (to use some hyperbole of my own) slimy dog mercenaries willing to fight for an unjust cause (defined by you) simply for profit.
My ultimate question would be…why do you suppose the folks who serve would care if they have your respect or not? Since your respect or lack there of is based on ignorance and prejudice?
-XT
No, but I can read what people write. And if someone states their willingness to fright for pay, what does that make them?
No. It’s something that each person has to decide for himself. Your opinion and mine will differ.
But just suppose someone decides for himself tat a particular war is unjust. And having decided that, agrees to go and fight it anyway. For pay. Fighting only to get paid, and for no other reason. On his own admission. What does that make him?
But I have seen dopers advocating joining the military and going to Iraq. And the main reason they gave for it: the pay is so much better than you might get in another job.
My level of respect is based upon my observing the behaviour of various military people, on this board and elsewhere.
I invite you to raise my opinion of you. If you don’t want to, then that’s up to you.
So far, you have repeatedly dodged the point, ignored what I have written, invented strawmen, and so on. This has failed to raise my opinion of the military. You are just harming yourself by these tactics.
Human beings? Of course, your entire precept is a strawman…the majority of people, not being comic book characters, have complex reasons for joining the service. Among those complex reasons pay may be one…but I seriously doubt you have anything approaching a cite showing that even a large minority of US service personnel fight for pay. Or do you? Do you have more than your uninformed opinion to back up your supposition?
Certainly. Therefore it’s completely subjective, from the point of view of the person making the determination. So…it’s kind of harsh to judge someone based on YOUR subjective valuation of whether a cause is just or not.
A mercenary I would say. But you are painting with a broader brush than an individual. Look at your OP title…look at what you say in the OP besides the parts where you are attempting to parse out the motives of an individual from a few sentences on a message board.
Even if this is true…what do you suppose it proves exactly? What do you suppose a few 'dopers opinions on this subject represents exactly? You are basing your entire argument on what a few 'dopers may have said…and then attempting to broaden your brush to encompass the entire military and all who serve in it. Do you not see the irrationality of such a stance?
Well, that is of course your right…ironically maintained in large part by the very military you don’t respect and of who’s use you seem to waffle back and forth about it’s usefulness.
I and others (mostly others) have attempted to do so in various ways…to no avail. Just as it’s impossible to convince a flat earther that the world is round, or a creationist that evolution is a fact, it is impossible to convince someone of something they don’t want to believe. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t beat it to death in mid stream.
Interestingly, I feel exactly the same about you and your posts…with, IMHO, more justification. Well…mileage may vary after all.
-XT
I made an analogy some time ago, that I do not believe you ever addressed: Suppose you decided for yourself that a particular war is unjust. And, having decided that, you continue to fund that war via your taxes. What does that make you? Is that an honorable course of action?
Back to the situation at hand, I can’t imagine any situation where a person would volunteer for a war they feel is unjust. Going to war is no picnic. No amount of pay and benefits is worth the privations and hardship a servicemember serving in a war zone endures, not to mention the risk to life and limb.
As for career military personnel, they don’t get to make the choice. They are committed to a certain period of service, and don’t get to choose whether to go to war or not.
That being said, there are career military personnel I have met who have disagreed with current policies who have decided to not re-enlist or who have resigned their commissions as officers, should they be given the opportunity to do so.
Coming to the rare case in which: “someone decides for himself [that] a particular war is unjust. And having decided that, agrees to go and fight it anyway. For pay. Fighting only to get paid, and for no other reason.” I would conclude that such a person has indeed violated their own personal ethics. However, should their judgment of the unjustness of the cause turn out to be incorrect, they could find themselves in the position of behaving honorably for the “wrong” reasons.
For example, suppose that a young American man raised in the 1930s was of the belief that all foreign wars were by definition unjust. And suppose that, despite this firmly held belief, he volunteered to fight in Germany solely for pay. If he later participated in defeating Nazi Germany and liberating concentration camps, is he still a dishonorable mercenary?
This is getting philosophical, but some people argue that all actions that people take are done for purely selfish reasons. Even the charity worker who donates all their time and possessions to the poor, the argument goes, does so solely because it makes them feel good inside. If the charity worker does the good works solely because of the good feelings that they get for doing them, does that somehow negate their good works and make their actions dishonorable?
Fight for pay? What? Are they supposed to fight for free and rock on in the fight for freedom and MRE’s?
I’m trying to be civil tomndebb But this guy is sending me over the edge.
Has this guy read any history at all?
You misunderstand me. I was saying that I thought that his mentioning the person as a cite would not denigrate that person (as that person would have previously volunteered the information. If my “You’re full of shit” option was over the line, my apologies.
Misunderstanding again. I was intimating that he was hiding behind the skirts of the mods. But as my metaphor would place him behind, not under, the skirts, the fault seems to be mine. Sorry for the poor writing.
I do think that the OP should have to supply the name of the poster(s) he says fit his scenario. My guess is that the poster dod NOT knowingly decide to participate in a war he already deemed immoral. That should be revealed. If I am wrong, I wold like to see it. And will then carry on the discussion from there. Do you agree that he should reveal the poster’s name(s), and that it would not be an insult to that person—as that poster would have already shared that very information?
[ /Moderating ]
[/QUOTE]
There you go again. The same old strawman. I have stated this so many times already, I’m certain you know what I’m saying.
Let me just explain something to you very simply. A very basic point that you appear to have missed.
I am inviting you to change my mind.
There, that’s it.
Here’s how you can win the debate. Give me a reason to change my mind. If I emerge from this debate with my mind changed then you have won.
Here’s how you can lose the debate. Insult me, vilify me, alienate me, fail to change my mind.
So, keep right on distorting everything I say out of recognition. Keep right on dodging every single question I ask. Each time you do that, you alienate me a little bit more, and thus take one step more towards losing the debate.
Look at the quotes I gave in my first post, and follow the link. You will see a specific example of someone who HAS done precisely that. And several other people advocating that another person SHOULD do that.
I would love to discuss those specific individuals, but Tom will close the thread if I do. That is not kissing ass, or hiding behind his skirt. I do not like this ruling or agree with it, but I must abide by it if I want this thread to remain open.
For that reason, I cannot be any more specific than I have been. You can find the cite yourself if you look for it.
That’s ridiculous. If it is truly a debate, either side can win or lose. If neither side can convince the other of his position, then it is a stalemate. For YOU to “win”, you have to get someone to change their opinion and adopt yours. Though I think most people here don’t view debating as something with a W or an L at the end of it. I see you have over 4,000 posts. How can you not know this by now?
I’m calling bullshit on this one because it’s obvious which thread you are referring to. Let me clarify something for you that everyone else seemed to understand. There is a lot more that can be achieved through military service than simply pay. Nobody is going to suggest that a young man should enlist for the pay because it’s low…very low. An E1 in the Navy makes about $311/week, which comes out to $7.77/hour IF they are only working 40 hours/week. Ask any guy in the military if there was any time they worked over 40 hours. When they did, there was no overtime. Further, you’ll notice their pay is capped. Once you’ve served at a pay rate for a certain amount of time if you aren’t promoted, you don’t get a raise…ever or until the government raises the pay scale.
That being said, and the point of my consideration and the advice of numerous posters, while a young man could possibly earn more delivering pizzas, the military offers him far more opportunity to improve his skills, his character, and his future. Are you suggesting that it’s selfish to seriously consider and appreciate those opportunities? Everyone else does it. But military personnel do that *and *have the privilege of knowing that they are serving their country while performing duties that most of us don’t want to give up civilian life to perform. There’s absolutely nothing dishonorable about that and they deserve, at the very least, the remuneration our government is currently offering.
So, no. It’s not about the pay. It’s about the full package. And it’s not just about killing. It’s about performing a service to your country (and often other countries) which entails many, many activities other than killing.
And how would I do so considering that your opinion is made up of strawmen and uninformed conjecture. Not only I but others have told you that very few people are going to go off to fight for the US military in a cause they feel is unjust for the pittance we pay our service personnel. If they want money they would become mercenaries…or better yet they would become doctors, lawyers or politicians. They wouldn’t put their lives at risk, endure privation and hardship for what amounts to little more than minimum wage. They could work at WalMart and not risk being blown up by an IED or shot in a back alley.
Now…having explained that multiple times, what more can I do to convince you? I doubt anything will penetrate your iron convictions at this point, no? What would it take?
There is no winning such a debate IMHO…there is only making your point and hoping that folks lurking about get the point you are trying to make. It’s very similar to the endless evolution debates, or debating the latest Loose Change CT guy who just HAS to show the video again and breathlessly explain how we all need to see it. If you could be convinced, you would have been convinced by now…and by better, more eloquent posters than I. All the points that need be made have been made…the fact that you remain unconvinced in the face of pretty overwhelming logic speaks for itself.
Well, leaving aside the martyrs stance, I’d say most of the insults etc are from pure frustration by most of the posters who have attempted to engage you in this debate. For my part, if you feel I’ve insulted or vilified you I apologize…it wasn’t my intent to insult YOU…merely to show your position as being built on straw and sand and to insult IT. I have no real animosity toward you as a poster…merely think your position on this issue is built on ignorance, and that in this instance you are unwilling to look at alternatives to your position, to analyze it and see the flaws.
Can you cite said dodging? AFAIK I have not dodged anything you have asked, and have answered fairly completely. If you think I’ve dodged something feel free to be specific and show me and I will endeavor to correct said dodging. You may want to try it yourself btw…you haven’t exactly addressed yourself to the content of my (or others) posts either, simply saying folks are dodging you, insulting you and vilifying you, etc etc. If you REALLY think you are being directly insulted I urge you to report the post to a mod and have them spank the offending poster (myself included). If you REALLY think your points are being dodged, I urge you to be specific…show exactly what points you feel are being dodged, instead of vague hand waving.
-XT
Peter
You had some interesting ideas, but I think they got lost in the noise/touchiness of the way you created the posts here. But I think i kinda see where you’re coming from, though I would have phrased the question differently:
I would have asked:
- Should I respect Mercenaries in general? (Since that’s what you’re getting about with your serving for the $ but not the cause)
With the caveat/follow up: - Should I respect Mercenaries that my OWN government hired to protect my nation?
- Should I respect enemy Mercenaries (I guess if you wanted to ask that one, but I think that’s part of Question 1).
I think if you defined it that way, people might be willing to answer your questions without getting worked up, as you are asking a very emotional and sensitive topic for many people, yet, I see your question being labeled as the above two questions.
Nope. You have leaped to a conclusion without sufficient evidence.
The only thing that Sunrazor and Brown Eyed Girl have said is that each of their sons “disagrees with” the Iraq policy. You have decided that that means he considers the Iraq policy unjust. However, I know a number of people who disagree with the Iraq policy who do not consider the war unjust or unethical, they include those who believe that[ul][li]the war was justified, but we screwed up the execution of it and we should stay to correct our errors;[/li][li]the war was a mistake, based on faulty intelligence, if well-intended, but we need to stay to fix our mistakes;[/li][li]the war was an immoral crime perpetrated by a corrupt adminstration, but our actions have now imperilled the lives of too many Iraqis to justify our withdrawal and we need to keep our military there to protect the Iraqi citizens long enough to establish a secure country that can operate on its own;[/li][li]the war was fully justified and carried out as well as could be expected, but now that it is turning into a quagmire, we should extract ourselves.[/ul][/li]Not one of those persons would consider serving in the military in Iraq to be an unethical choice. In each case, they disagree with the (current administration’s) Iraq policy, but see a need for the military to remain at least long enough to not leave Iraq in utter chaos.
It is your rash assumption, (one that you made in the other thread and then used that assumption to launch this thread), that some people are signing up for benefits in a situation that they consider immoral.
You are welcome to discuss it with any poster who comes to this thread and asserts their own views regarding their own actions. What is prohibited is using this thread to attack other posters for actions or beliefs that have not been demonstrated to be unethical.
Well, it would all depend on exactly how you are defining mercenary here. Yes, I saw the text book definition which is (according to your cite):
In the specific, are we talking about service personnel or folks from private companies like Blackwater or other private security agencies here? Even if we are talking about folks working for Blackwater (in Iraq), are they really only mercenaries in the strict sense? They are there not so much to fight but for security afaik. And I don’t know that there is any great level of respect for or even expectation of respect for security (or out and out mercenary) personnel in Iraq…no more than, say, respect for guys doing any other job for pay. Probably a great deal less in fact…though I doubt it really gets on most peoples radar to be honest.
The OP seems to be attempting to broaden the definition of mercenary to encompass regular military service personnel however…and offering up as evidence a post by someone on a message board (a post which was fairly ambiguous btw…at least by my own reading). Really that’s what this all comes down to…the OP’s reaction to a couple of 'dopers views, some of which are probably distortion or incorrect…and even if not, they are the personal views of a couple of people who may very well simply be full of shit and/or unrepresentative of any group or organization.
-XT