The military is protecting the country even when they are not actually fighting in a war, so you might have to revise your calculations. And, even now, most of the people in the military are not in Iraq.
Now, I’d be surprised if anyone went into the army or the marines in the last 2-4 years without thinking there’d be a good chance he or she would end up in Iraq, but there are plenty of people who were against the invasion, but who think we need to still be there. That would include the top 3 contenders for the Democratic Presidential nomination, btw.
So, even if you revise your numbers downward as appropriate, it’s faulty logic to equate being in the military with agreeing to any given policy of the US government-- either before a person joins or after.
What does this mean? You have no cites so you’d rather believe a debate is going to be won by calling people names?
So you’ll be responding to my post #52 any second now, then?
I see. So suggesting that Saddam supported AQ in the context of suggesting the war was justified is not derailing the thread, but calling you on it is. Gotcha. How convenient for you.
My logic is that it is proper to equate joining the military with acquiescing in a very good chance that you will get called upon to do immoral things.
WTF? Keep the mindless rants up your kazoo – or shout them at the mirror, you fuckin’ murderous asswipe. Either up the meds or counter-address the cites contained in my post. Including your own Senate’s conclusion.
Fucking brainless inbred motherfucker.
Here, try to educate yourself. Though I doubt that’s possible:
Just read the whole thing. Tired of spoon-feeding such a twat.
Endless more where those came from, you two-faced lying fuck.
PS-And if you’re suggesting something about a physical confrontation (?), I’ll remind that is not only outside the rules of this forum but rather desperate, childish and proof that you have no legitimate arguments left… Even so – you’re welcomed to come visit me F2F anytima, details via e-mail. There are fates much worse than death – such as yours.
If you would look at my conduct in this thread you will see that I was having a respctful debate with MrDibble, who I couldn’t disagree with more. No vitriol. No heat. No name calling. Even when another poster came in to challenge me, I handled it the same. As I have with you. I suggest you read carefully and see what instigated what before you start flapping your gums. I’m happy to leave Pink Pussy alone, but when he stands up and asks me so pointedly to bitch slap him, I’m inclined to oblige. And the cite issue is not that there are no cites supporting my position, (you certainly can’t beleive that, can you?) but that they would prove squat. In the end it comes down to which cites one is inclined to believe and how the totality of information is filtered by our own histories and prejudices. We all have them. Even, I dare say, you. So, I am not very interested in cite wars except when trying to prove or disprove something that is purely factual. The moral assessment we’re making does not fall into that. Which is why I am willing to stipulate moral failing on the part of Bush & Co. If this were the first time this discussion were had, I would be much more interested in seeing what was out there. As it is, the cites are old news. Pink Pussy must have them programmed into certain keys so he can regurgitate them with the same ease he spews forth drunken stupidity. Or, at times, sober stupdity.
Well, if were addressed to me, I would have. There are many private discussions that go on between posters within a thread and I try not to insinuate myself into every one of them. But here you go:
I don’t think that pre-2002 the image of the military is what you view it as. The stink of Vietnam was no longer on the uniform and the last substantial engagement was Quwait. In that war I think that the general view is that the U.S. military acquitted themselves well and acted quite honorably. I see no reason why someone joining the U.S. military pre-2002, and especially post-9/11 shouldn’t be viewed as someone who was looking to honorably serve their country and better themselves through acquiring skills and education. While there were smaller operations over the timeframe you mention that could be construed as paiinting the military as immoral, I’d say that for a 20 year-old kid that the impression he had was formed by more recent events.
I was responding to a question posed to me. I tried to do so with minor effor as to not to distract from the discussion I was having that I was actually interested in.
Well, if you can point to where I’ve lied, this might mean something. Actually, even though you can’t it means something. It means you’re half way into the scotch and spewing your usual crazed rantings. Helter Skelter, Bubb, Helter Skelter. Question: are you frothing at the mouth, too. That’s what I’m picturing and I’d like to know if it’s accurate. It’s a good laugh nonetheless. Hehehehehe.
Is this your proof that you are drunk? You huff that I threatened your pussy self physically—which I clearly have not—but then you level a threat my way. Brilliant, just brilliant, you moron. And didn’t one of these tough-guy-over-the-internet threats (shiver-me-timbers) of yours with another poster already reveal you to be the pussy you are, complete with the pussy hair around your lips?
What a complete schmuck. No if you want to do some good, go get my shovel back from another person who knew you were just an imitation of a man.
Now as much as I enjoy bitchslapping you, Pink Pussy, it’s a little too easy. So, I’m goint to leave you to your frothing and your task. But I’ll make you a deal. I’ll switch to your position if you can provide me with 10,000 independent cites that are in agreement with each other. Now, run along.
Go ahead, git… What’s that? Fine, take the bottle…now git.
Whatever you say. I’ve already stated what interests me and what doesn’t.
You didn’t use those words, but you did. Back in the post you requested I read. I’m not trying to put words into your mouth, but isn’t the point of taking into account (correctly, I’d say) the past the impresion we are left with, i.e., the image we are left with? Your statement: "Look back at the history of US usage of military force over the last 30-40 years. " is making the point that people should take that into account. Is itnot? And if they do, they should have realized that there was an immoral history that they should assume is still part of the military. I don’t disagree with your thinking, I only add that I think the more recent events occupied a more dominant position in the minds of 20 year-olds pre-2002. And that would mean that these kids viewed the military as an honorable endeavour.
Speaking of being liquored-up, that’s the only way I can “understand” how you wrote that unintelligible screed of yours – which, of course, has zilch to do with my fully researched and cited post. Or would that be crack? Moonshine? Some new shit past my years? Never mind. If it turns you into what you show here – a bitter, contentious, lying fuck. For starters.-- I want no part of it…whatever “it” might be.
Not up on vices in my old age.
No use for an 'net bitch either. I like my bitches to show a bit of intelligence as well which is clearly beyond you. So go rot where you don’t stink-up the place much. Not like I really give a shit though.
Alleged Saddam/AQ connections interest you enough to allege them, but your interest wanes at the point you are called upon to justify your allegations.
Yes to the first part, but your final sentence misses the point. It is a question of history being a predictor of the future, not of being associated with something with a dubious history.
I’ll accept that those who join the military may be:
too stupid to realise that history tends to be a predictor of the future.
unforgiveably ignorant of the last 40 years of history of the activities of the organisation they are about to irrevocably commit themselves to
knowledgeable of the last 40 years etc but uncaring of what that means their enlistment might entail
I think you go to far here, in several regards. As far as history being a predictor, the miltary has been a fact of life for thousands of years. Your position presupposes that it has always acted immorally and that joining up with it has always been the result of stupid people not being able see that that history would necessarily, or likely, lead to further immoral behavior. Would you grant that the militaryhas ever acted honorably? Or more to the point, was perceived as acting honorably?
Would you not say that during the 90s, due in large part to Bush 41’s war, that the military had repaired much of the negative opinion people had of it due to Vietnam and Reagan’s exploits in south America? And that the kids that were 20 years old in 2002 would have been much more swayed by the latest reputation of the military rather than one that may have been prevalent before they were 10 years old?
I’m not sure of your ultimate position here. Are you of the opinion that joining the military, at least since 2002, is necessarily immoral? If so, when was the last time, if it all, that joining the military was not immoral. And beyond that, was it ever not just moral, but honorable?
No, I didn’t miss the point. The fact is a lot of peoplr that I personally enlisted did sign up for reasons other than going into combat. You can still sign up to defend the country and be sent to Iraq. A lot of people don’t get deployed. Its hard to imagine, I’m sure, but there are some folks that don’t get sent to Iraq. You have a better chance of being sent there in the reserves or national guard in my opinion. Yeah, thats fucked up, but I’ve seen guys I put in that haven’t left the states and nat’l guard units on the 3rd and 4th rotation. Very few people actually signed up and asked for infantry jobs though. And yes, just before I left recruiting the numbers dwindled drastically.
BTW, Sorry if that was blunt and quickly written, Tomndeb, I was at home getting readyfor work when I typed it and when I looked at the clock I was running late! I gotta stop going on line in the morning. I only made it here (to work) on time by the hair of my chinny chin chin.
What I asked you for was a cite. You haven’t answered jack shit. Saying “I’m not going to answer” is not an answer, except maybe in the opinion of a wilfully ignorant prat.
I’m just going to stop bothering with you if you keep strawman-ing. Go back and read my posts and then ask yourself why the hell you are suggesting that my position is the military “always acted immorally” or see any need to ask if it has ever acted honourably.
See my previous post which sets out the options I will countenance. You seem quite nicely to be reinforcing my point. You correctly point out that if one were so stupid or unforgiveably ignorant as to join up on the basis of an extremely limited consideration of what may be involved (you seem to suggest that the last 10 years or so is sufficient, for fuck’s sake!) one might do so and actually be able kid yourself that what you were doing was unlikely to involve doing immoral things.
In my opinion, if you join up and then find yourself in some disastrous conflict doing immoral or stupid things, you are in no position to cry off that you didn’t know or couldn’t have known what you were likely to end up doing.
It all comes down to the end of that sentence, doesn’t it? the word “likely”. There is the crux of where we disagree. I don’t think that it was ever the case that joing the U.S. military* likely* resulted in one being asked to act immorally. Even using the 30% metric you offered earleir, I think that it is grossly inflated. In fact, I think it is grossly inflated even if you restrict your sample to those soldiers who are sent into battle. I doubt either of us will be able to prove our case in this regard. I would think that even if you accepted at face value every report of immoral behavior on behalf of our soldiers in Iraq that the number would be much smaller.
What number of U.S. soldiers in Iraq would you say have committed actual immoral acts while there? Excluding, for the purpose of this question, considering them being in Iraq or in the military immoral in and of itself? I think this question will help us put a sharper point on our discussion.
Well, I personally know a lot of Reservists and Guardsmen who signed up a long time before 2002 who were called back to serve in Iraq. One is around my age, and is a Lt. Col. I think he joined up around the end of 'Nam. Yes, he has a “cushy office job”, but that isn’t all that safe in Iraq.
I am not sure if many Active military have been semi-“forced” into staying beyond their terms from 2002 into 2007, this wiki article is not clear.
"*…is one of 40,000 troops in Iraq who have been informed that their enlistment has been extended until December 24th, 2031. “I’ve served five months past my one-year obligation,” says Qualls, the lead plaintiff in a lawsuit challenging the military with breach of contract. “It’s time to let me go back to my life. It’s a question of fairness, and not only for myself. This is for the thousands of other people that are involuntarily extended in Iraq. Let us go home.”
The Army insists that most “stop-lossed” soldiers will be held on the front lines for no longer than eighteen months. But Jules Lobel, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights who is representing eight National Guardsmen in a lawsuit challenging the extensions, says the 2031 date is being used to strong-arm volunteers into re-enlisting. According to Lobel, the military is telling soldiers, “We’re giving you a chance to voluntarily re-enlist – and if you don’t do it, we’ll screw you. And the first way we’ll screw you is to put you in until 2031.”*
Let’s say that hasn’t helped, but it’s not the primary reason.
I don’t know - I tend to deal with exceptions as they are brought up. So far, yes.
Hell, no…
…umm, have you ever seen my contributions to religious threads? I’m with Voltaire on priests and princes.
Not off the top of my head, no.
In the sum of things? It depends. **His being in Iraq is in and of itself one continuing immoral action. That’s kind of my main point. **What he does there also has its own moral weight. And I didn’t say he’d be doing something “great” as in “big good”, I meant “yeah, that’s great”, as in “yeah, that’s nice”
You mean the shit their side blew up in the first place? Morally neutral.
Again, morally neutral. Not that that’s what happens in Iraq, AFAICT. Army cooks feed the army, a moral bad as it helps them occupy.
Call the cops.
No games. I’m saying if you know that he’s blowing up a market, call the cops. the Iraqi cops. That’s my first choice - cops before soldiers. Because cops prevent crimes, soldiers just kill people.
Saving children is a good thing, yes. Scenario one earns a lot of moral positive weight. Scenario two is morally neutral to me.
My default assumption would be “freedom fighter” rather than “sectarian terrorist”, yes.
It’s not something I can prove to you. You either have my moral sensibilities or you don’t. I can argue whether something is consistent with my given moral stance or not, that’s where logic comes into it. But the baseline axioms of my moral stance are just that - axiomatic.
One of those axioms is - the initial aggressor in a conflict is the bad one. Yes, I leave room for “clear and present danger”, but demand a close accounting after the fact. So, for instance, Six Day War gets a pass, Iraq occupation, not so much.
Which is why I am willing to give a boots-on-ground soldier in 2003 a pass, morally. Now, 4 years later? Not a damn! Be complicit with evil, suffer the taint.
Never said that
Are you fucking serious? No, I mean it, are you completely, absolutely, fucking serious? Have you read these boards the last 4 years? Have you watched the news, read a paper, stuck your head anywhere outside your own ass?
I don’t have to prove shit, it’s already been done countless times. Take it as read.
They have sufficient information necessary to make an informed choice now.
Works for me.
If you think the Iraq war is morally justified, you have bigger problems than whether I can convince you of anything.
Hello? All morality is subjective, as far as I’m concerned. It is an opinion. And no, it’s not begging the question. The case for the immorality of the war has already been made successfully. Your willful denial isn’t my problem.
They invaded a fucking country that was no threat to them at all. If that isn’t immoral, just what the hell do you think is?
On second thoughts, don’t answer that. I don’t really want to know. Possible answers scare me.
What broad-brushing? I’ve been very specific in what I’m addressing - the baseline morality of a soldier partaking in the Iraq occupation. I’ve not claimed that this makes individual soldiers unmitigated evil. I’ve only stated that they are not starting from a morally neutral or positive point. They have to, in fact, behave like angels if they want to come out of it smelling of roses. And no, not the angels that wasted Sodom and Gomorrah, either. The kind that saved that donkey.
That’s right. Calling the American forces would be my absolute last resort - and I’d never kill the person myself, even to save lives. Sorry, but that’s how I roll.