Just for the record, I would prefer not to be associated with Olentzero stance for the purpose of elaboration or for any other purpose. My position is that soldiers (generic) can and do perform admirably in bad causes. Admirable performance by soldiers does not make the cause they serve admirable.
I’ve been thinking about this bit from Henry V. (by William Shakespeare)
BATES: Then I would he were here alone; so should he be sure to be
ransomed, and a many poor men’s lives saved.
KING HENRY: I dare say you love him not so ill, to wish him here alone,
howsoever you speak this to feel other men’s minds. Methinks
I could not die anywhere so contented as in the King’s company,
his cause being just and his quarrel honourable.
WILLIAMS: That’s more than we know.
BATES: Ay, or more than we should seek after; for we know enough, if
we know we are the King’s subjects. If his cause be wrong, our
obedience to the King wipes the crime of it out of us.
WILLIAMS: But if the cause be not good, the King himself hath a heavy
reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopp’d
off in a battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all,
“We died at such a place”; some swearing, some crying for a
surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the
debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left. I am afeard
there are few die well that die in a battle; for how can they
charitably dispose of anything, when blood is their argument?
Now, if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter
for the King that led them to it; who to disobey were against
all proportion of subjection.
KING HENRY: So, if a son that is by his father sent about merchandise do
sinfully miscarry upon the sea, the imputation of his wickedness,
by your rule, should be imposed upon his father that sent him; or
if a servant, under his master’s command transporting a sum of
money, be assailed by robbers and die in many irreconcil’d
iniquities, you may call the business of the master the author of
the servant’s damnation. But this is not so. The King is not
bound to answer the particular endings of his soldiers, the father
of his son, nor the master of his servant; for they purpose not
their death, when they purpose their services. Besides, there is
no king, be his cause never so spotless, if it come to the
arbitrement of swords, can try it out with all unspotted soldiers.
Some peradventure have on them the guilt of premeditated and
contrived murder; some, of beguiling virgins with the broken seals
of perjury; some, making the wars their bulwark, that have before
gored the gentle bosom of Peace with pillage and robbery. Now, if
these men have defeated the law and outrun native punishment,
though they can outstrip men, they have no wings to fly from God.
War is his beadle, war is his vengeance; so that here men are
punish’d for before-breach of the King’s laws in now the King’s
quarrel. Where they feared the death, they have borne life away;
and where they would be safe, they perish. Then if they die
unprovided, no more is the King guilty of their damnation than he
was before guilty of those impieties for the which they are now
visited. Every subject’s duty is the King’s; but every subject’s
soul is his own. Therefore should every soldier in the wars do as
every sick man in his bed, wash every mote out of his conscience;
and dying so, death is to him advantage; or not dying, the time was
blessedly lost wherein such preparation was gained; and in him that
escapes, it were not sin to think that, making God so free an
offer, He let him outlive that day to see His greatness and to
teach others how they should prepare.
WILLIAMS: *'Tis certain, every man that dies ill, the ill upon his own head,
the King is not to answer for it. *
I’m not sure if I agree with Henry. But here he does believe that his cause is just so YMMV.
Unless Mr. Moto would like to correct me, I don’t think this is what his intent was at all. It’s certainly in no way reflects the impression I got from reading any of the threads. Were it to be I might be more sympathetic to your accusation but frankly I think this characterization is inaccurate and made in bad faith.
I don’t find the threads to be about anything other than the brave actions of men in a very difficult situation and I wish to hell they weren’t gettiing mucked up by the political agendas of a few, no matter which way they lean.
Indeed. Please point out where Mr. Moto used his heroism threads to “illuminate and enhance” Bush’s policies. Here’s a hint - that has not happened. The threads are started “to recognize courage, gallantry, and initiative”, exactly as you state.
The problem is not what you state. The problem is that there are so many liberal idiots on the SDMB who find it physically uncomfortable to know that somewhere, somehow, someone is living their life successfully and gives not even a tinker’s damn that liberals think they need to be ashamed of doing their duty well. And therefore some of the liberals in question feel the need to shit all over any thread that is about anything at all that isn’t “BushIsBadBushIsBadBushIsBadBushIsBadBushIsBadBushIsBadBushIsBad”.
The hive mind does not tolerate dissent. Neither does the jerking knee.
Regards,
Shodan
That is indeed a problem. It is also a problem that there are so many conservative idiots who find it physically uncomfortable to know that somewhere, somehow, someone is living their life by their own moral convictions and gives not even a tinker’s damn that conservatives think they need to be ashamed of doing what makes them happy.
I don’t know about that. If nobody saw my point, then yeah, major backfire. There are people here who agree with what I had to say, if not how I said it. Same for your side.
Oh yes, they do - because those war policies are what sent those soldiers into combat. You cannot say “These men fought bravely” without asking the question “Why are they fighting?”
Although Mr. Cunningham is no longer around to ask about his views on the war, his example is the only one I would consider fully supporting your argument here. Killing in war is a necessity, and is not bravery.
No, you’re a ghoul for claiming that heroism somehow involves killing people and those who kill more than others in the field of war should have their names sung out across the country.
It seems to me a similar argument could have been, and probably was, used by segregationists during the era of Plessy v. Ferguson to bolster their arguments that racism was somehow a noble idea. I’m not saying you hold racist ideas or anything like that, just that “The government says so” is not really a strong backup for arguments.
Most people also thought Iraq had a direct connection to the events of 9/11. That kinda got shattered when the truth finally came out. Being in the majority doesn’t automatically mean you’re right; of course being in the minority doesn’t, either. It depends on the case you’re trying to make.
I don’t know about that, either. I did a quick search on your name just now, and I’ve found ten threads just on the first page alone in which you have posted and I haven’t. If I’d popped into every thread you’d posted in and said “Hey Mr. Moto, you sick ghoul, stop the war and bring the troops home” or something similar, ie bringing the subject of the War Heroes threads up every time you made a post anywhere, then I think the charge of stalking (and appropriate action by the Mods and Admins) would be justified.
Oddly enough, I wasn’t making a game of being the first in. I wasn’t even trying.
Given Mr. Moto’s ultraconservative, pro-Bush, and pro-War in Iraq views, it does not take any stretch of imagination to perceive that agenda in his ostensibly non-political . Much as if Olentzero were to start multiple threads describing the accomplishments of, say, labor union organizers who improved pay and working conditions in Latin American sweatshops. You’re both about as politically transparent as can be, after all.
However, the MPSIMS threads are not overtly political. If they were, they’d be in the wrong forum. Attacking the posts for their political content when they are not overtly political and not in a political forum is just being a dick. Let it slide, or take it to a proper forum. This one, for instance.
Let’s try that first sentence again:
*Given Mr. Moto’s ultraconservative, pro-Bush, and pro-War in Iraq views, it does not take any stretch of imagination to perceive that agenda in his ostensibly non-political “War Heroes” threads. *
I really don’t know how you can compare a Navy Cross citation to a racist policy. That’s just repugnant to me, Olentzero.
And yet, you dance around repudiating the citations entirely, although this little screed comes very close. You seem to know doing so would be as popular as a fart in church.
I’ll retract my assertion that you were making a game out of being first in. But everything else stands. You were keeping an eye out for these threads, and set out to protest them in an inappropriate manner. And in fact, you were asked to stop doing so by Coldfire.
lieu, you characterize my intent well.
You think this is a problem on the SDMB, as I specified? I think you are wrong.
On the SDMB, it is pretty nearly unanimously liberal. As in -
[ul][li]You believe in God? You’re an idiot.[/li][li]You voted for Bush? You’re a moron. [/li][li]You want to call it civil union instead of marriage? You’re a bigot.[/li][li]You support the troops? You’re a sick ghoul.[/ul][/li]Endlessly.
Regards,
Shodan
And saying “good job, boys”. I don’t agree with the US government’s defitinion of ‘heroism’ and I don’t agree that servicemen should be commended for meeting that definition. And I especially don’t agree with the sentiment that the general public has some sort of duty or obligation to be thankful to those servicemen because the government has cited them for merit in meeting that bogus definition of ‘heroism’.
I’m not, you fucking moron. I was saying that the argument you used in support of it (“bravery has been codified by US law”) could have been used to support a racist position. Get your head out of your ass.
minty green, you raise an interesting point. If Mr. Moto is as politically transparent as I am (and I take the label as a compliment!), then what does that say about masking a political agenda in threads with a thin veneer and placing it in a forum where the threads are specifically intended not to be political?
sorry, that should read “masking it with a thin veneer of ‘heroism’…”
minty green’s point is valid, even if his characterization if me is a little over the top. It’s not like I’m some kind of Trojan horse here. I’m very up front about what I believe.
However, these threads were not intended to be political, Olentzero. And not many people are finding overt politics in them. They certainly weren’t intended as yet another war debate.
You still haven’t answered the question of how you’d react if you read these citations as news stories in the paper. This is certainly relevant to me, since my mitivation for posting these stories in the first place was that they hadn’t been widely reported.
It says that he’s capable of complying with the forum descriptions. Intent takes a back seat to content in this case.
Camp outside the responsible journalist’s house with a big ol’ placard saying “Stop the War”, and follow him wherever he went, interrupting him with “Bring the troops home NOW!” every time he tried to open his mouth. :rolleyes:
Seriously? Perhaps a letter to the editor of the paper, stating my position as I have stated it around here. That is, if I weren’t already heavily involved in anti-war activism here in DC.
I don’t know as to your assertion that “not many people” are finding overt politics in them. You’ve got a handful of respondents in each thread, hardly a representative sample of the SDMB community as a whole. Not many people who posted in your threads found overt politics in them, yes, but their position was pretty much in agreement with yours about ‘heroism’ and, probably, on the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. I called “bullshit” (and I still think rightly so), pulled the cover off the politics that were undeniably there, intention notwithstanding, and now here we are.
minty green, I disagree about the “intent vs. content” statement, although I’m still wrestling with exactly why. As a rough thought on the subject - even if you’re a fully licensed and thoroughly skilled demolitions expert, United Airlines isn’t going to let you carry explosive equipment on one of their planes.
I fully anticipated that the threads would get a few respondents, and a good bit of lurking.
That makes them successful threads for what my intent was, which was to make the stories of these servicemembers more widely known.
I think both sides have valid points. Killing people that are trying to kill you is not cowardly, and saving the life of your fellow serviceman is never dishonorable. That being said, I believe we can best support our troops by getting them out of harm’s way as quickly as possible. We have to get beyond whether we should have or should not have gotten in, let’s work on getting out in as few pieces as we can. To me, the guy that figures out where the exit door is would be the biggest hero of all.
And I don’t think that’s anything that deserves to be more widely known. The government thinks soldiers it sent to kill people did a good job killing them. Yay us.
I’d sure like a few threads about heroic labor organizers. Olent, you up to the task? Find me some people I can believe in.
Actually, that illustrates my point precisely. A demolitions expert doesn’t get to carry dynamite on an airplane, and overtly political posters don’t get to put overtly political threads in MPSIMS. A demolitions expert can fly on United Airlines, however, and an overtly political poster can post threads that are not overtly political in MPSIMS.
If you see political subtext in a MPSIMS thread, but it’s not on the surface and it’s not trolling, leave it alone. And hell, even if you do see overt political stuff in MPSIMS, report it to a moderator and take your criticism elsewhere. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and all that stuff.