E-Sabbath - It would have to be a weekend thing, since I’m already way the hell behind on work today just for being in this thread, but it sounds like a good idea. And since I know it’s a political thing, I’ll keep it out of MPSIMS. Probably go into IMHO. See, I’m not so afraid of having my views challenged that I’d put a thread on a volatile issue into the one forum where anyone else would get in trouble for commenting on it.
minty green, I’m with you on the “two wrongs don’t make a right” sentiment and I guess I’ll have to admit I handled it wrongly.
okay, idiot here’s the definition of heroism, not from the US Government, but from Websters:
The qualities characteristic of a hero, as courage, bravery, fortitude, unselfishness, etc.; the display of such qualities.
I think objectively each and every one of the men Mr Moto has posted about has certainly met that definition.
I agree that we shouldn’t be there. We were lied to in order to justify this invasion. The men and women who went didnt have a choice. However the men in these citations certainly had a choice as to whether they wanted to just save their own asses, or save their fellow soldiers at great personal risk.
by refusing to recognize these human qualities I think you do a disservice to anyone who puts their lives at risk to save another.
Soldiers are supposed to kill enemy soldiers; it’s in the job description. The problem here is that we are not defending America but invading another country and treating its people as conquered subjects, torturing them in prisons, and so on. But Bush;s guilt in sending them off to war on false pretexts sis in now way a sufficient reason for you to trash them in the manner that you have.
Your points on the war are valid, but the way and the forum where you expressed them were completely inappropriate. You don’t win the moral victory by the metaphorical flinging of crap on honor and courage.
You’ll note I specifically typed out “Iraqi General” and Iraqi Army". Insurgents I hold a bit lower, but again, I would mourn the loss of the troops, and I would respect the man who “successfully” carried out that defense, if it were above and beyond the norm of combat. This does NOT mean I respect or admire their position, politics, goals, or desires.
The hijackers from September, 2001? A VERY well executed mission. Fuckheads, all, but they got that job done extremely well.
Oh, for Christ’s sake. How many times do I have to say “I know killing is an intrinsic part of war and I am not blaming the soldiers for doing what the situation compels them to do”? I think it’s absolutely insane for a government to cite a soldier for merit in doing a necessarily dirty job, and I think saying to the general public “These men and women are doing something which we should be proud of and for which we should be thankful” is a crock of shit. Brian Chontosh’s ‘bravery’ in killing 20 Iraqis has given 20 Iraqi families cause to grieve, to say nothing of the financial and social consequences they’ll be faced with for years afterward. This isn’t something that should be lauded by the US government; neither should Chontosh be excoriated for it. Saying “Bring the troops home now” is not flinging crap at the soldiers, it’s saying “Far too many on both sides have died, to say nothing of those wounded physically and psychically. It’s not worth it; this has to end.” Sending more young men and women into the meat grinder is not supporting the troops.
Apology accepted, on my part. I don’t want to belabor these points, Olentzero, and I’d be happy to discuss any point of war and peace politics with you, in a forum appropriate for debate.
Now wait a minute. When I asked you if it was the thread or the award itself that you disagreed with, you said it was just the thread. Now you say that the citation itself was “insane”.
So I’ll ask you again, would you advocate revoking Sergeant York’s Medal of Honor from WWI just because he killed Germans? Why or why not?
So if I’m following your logic correctly, we should be vilifying George Washington, Ulysses Grant, George Patton, Dwight Eisenhower, et. al. We should also go tear down the Vietnam Memorial wall, the Iwo Jima memorial, etc. And we should do this because they all involve people who killed large numbers of other people.
Don’t jump to conclusions, there, pal. I admit I handled the situation wrong, but I am in no way apologizing to you.
Monkey with a Gun, where have I advocated revoking any citations? What the hell makes you think I advocate that, just because I disagree with the government doing it?
These citations are for the warriors and for those who respect warriors. This country was founded on dissent, and it is thriving still today. Olentzero fits the description of dissenter well in these cases. He does not respect glorifying the acts of warriors because he does not respect killing, this is a rational way of thinking.
There are many people who support this war and the troops without reservation.
There are many who do NOT support the war, but still support the troops to the point that these citations do them no harm.
And there are those who do not support the war, and do not support the troops, and do not support these citations.
Plus every nuance in between.
This thread is a well and good place for him to voice this dissent, Bravo!
Thank you for the most part, Uncle Bill, but I rather think wanting the troops to come home now and sparing them any further risk of death or crippling injury, to say nothing of the psychological toll exacted, is a far better way of supporting them than believing they have to stay and fight now that they’re there.
Why, yes, Guinastasia, thank you for pointing out what everybody already knows. Why?
Ah, wait, I see it. It’s because the Russian Revolution had a lot of people die in it, so if I come out in support of the Russian Revolution and in support of Lenin, I must therefore support the killing that went on in the Civil War and intervention.
All right, let’s try this again. Killing is an intrinsic part of war. It is a necessary step taken to make the cost of prosecuting the war too high for your enemy (or so I understand from reading von Clausewitz). Yes, the Red Army killed a lot of Whites and other international forces. It was a necessity given the situation that the Whites were fighting like hell to restore the old order in Russia, and the Red Army had to fight like hell to keep the new order established. There’s nothing glorious in what is necessary. I don’t know what conditions the Soviet government put on citing for bravery, but I do know I would still have disagreed with it had those citations been based on killing more Whites than the average soldier.
Or were you just trying to point out that I’m a dirty Commie and anyone who argues with me is just wasting their breath? Forgive the prickliness, but that’s been done once too often and I’m heartily sick of it.
Casey - given that you seem to have problems differentiating orifices from joints, I wouldn’t give your opinion too much weight.
Not me. I’m actually glad Olentzero is brave enough to speak out.
I’m very much against this war. It’s rooted in hubris and grudges, and was predicated on a lie. That said, while I understand that these soldiers were doing the job they swore an oath to do, I find nothing ennobling or heroic about dying in a war we had no business starting in the first place.
No problems at all. If there were, after reading your posts, I’m sure it’s clear where the confusion would lie, since you seem to have the part of your body containing your oral orifice lodged completely up your rectal orifice.
