Support Our Troops!

Great Debates
81

Given the average emotional and mental maturity of military recruits, they probably spat/spit on each other every few hours. I don’t see how some war protesters doing it makes it different, unless it is like that football thing where they can all slap each other’s asses, but if some towelboy does it they all kick his ass and rape him with a gatorade bottle.

If we are talking about blindly respecting people for risking their lives for something that they believe in, why limit that to Americans? Don’t we then have to “respect” the Iraqi “insurgents,” or FARC, or the Chechen rebels, or the millions of other people who risk their lives for something they believe in (very frequently taking a greater risk than American soldiers, and almost universally for much less compensation)?

Please. I don’t respect anyone just because. Well, that’s not true. I have some level of respect for any rebel group, because that takes balls, whatever the cause. Most people who join the American military do it because 1) they need money for college, 2) they don’t want to go to college, 3) they are escaping horrible family situations, and a distant 4th) because they actually feel like giving something back to their country. Some of those people I hold some respect for, some I obviously do not. My father and uncle joined the Navy and Marines respectively for reason 3 (getting as far away from my grandfather as possible).

Growing up in Los Angeles, the thing of “respect police officers” was always questioned, because obviously the LAPD are infested with horrible scumbags of people. I feel the same way about soldiers. Their motivations may be noble or ignoble, their actions the same. I do not instantly respect either until they show it. However, I will certainly cooperate with police to the extent possible, but that is out of respect of the law, not for them. That, and hoping they don’t hit me with their blunt instruments.

On the flip side of the coin, I won’t disrespect someone just because they are in the military. Soldiers are just young people, prone to all the stupid and brilliant things young people are prone to do. The difference is that their stupidity is multiplied by the fact that they have access to automatic weapons.

One thing I will say about the armed forces: They make for many excellent movies. I can’t wait for Three Kings 2. Keep up the good work!

82

I see. And later you follow this screed up with this…

[/quote]
On the flip side of the coin, I won’t disrespect someone just because they are in the military. Soldiers are just young people, prone to all the stupid and brilliant things young people are prone to do. The difference is that their stupidity is multiplied by the fact that they have access to automatic weapons.
[/quote]

So, which one is it? First you completely disrespect military members, then you say that you won’t disrespect those same people, only to insult soldiers once again right after saying that you won’t. You’re a real classy guy. :rolleyes:

Ah, that explains things. You think it’s just like Hollywood. Thank you for proving that your “mental maturity” is much lower than any of the Airmen I know.

83

I’ve some problems with these statements (or similar ones made in this thread)

First what kind of responsability are we talking about? Legal? Moral? Something else? It seems to me it hasn’t been defined, and as long as we don’t know what sort of responsability we are refering to, the argument is pointless.
Second, when does this responsability end? Let’s assume someone is so utterly opposed to the war that, say, he tries to assasinate the POTUS in the hope of stopping it. Is it still responsible for its consequences on the basis he’s american? What about this american citizen who fought with the Talibans in Afghanistan? Would you say that he still is somehow responsible for the american actions in Afghanistan because he’s an american citizen?
I still hold that one is responsible for one’s action (or lack thereof), and to an extent limited by one’s actual ability to act/abstain from acting, and knowledge of the possible consequences of said action/lack of action. But I’m refering to moral responsability, here, and I’m not sure, once again, what other people in this thread are talking about exactly.

84

Fully agree with that. If respect and support is due to people merely on the basis they are putting their life in line and/or had no say in the matter, then equal support is due to the ennemy, regardless the situation. It just doesn’t make sense.

85

xtisme:

First, I never in any way implied that I felt sorry for myself for being forced to live in the United States. I just stated the fact that I have no choice in the matter. Your nastiness is uncalled for.

Second, the fact that some Americans have managed to get authorization to work abroad does not lead to the conclusion that all, or most, Americans would be able to qualify if they tried. Yes, I have looked into becoming an expat for many years. (I even started a thread on it in IMHO once and was attacked for being unpatriotic.) I don’t know of any countries that would take me, despite the fact that I am not “completely worthless.” Canada and Australia have relatively liberal immigration laws because they are underpopulated and both have online tests to determine whether you are eligible. I don’t qualify, and most Americans wouldn’t.

Third, you explicitly stated that Americans choose to stay here, which is simply not true. That is the part of your post I quoted and responded to. The rest of it wasn’t directly relevant to my point. Recognize that leaving is not an option for most of us and stop making these ridiculous statements. Like it or not, we’re all stuck together in the same country.

Finally, why don’t you give us a hint as to what these “responsibilities as a citizen” are?

86

Why doesn’t it make sense? You can respect soldiers from other countries even while you’re fighting them. Fact is, you should. Even if you don’t agree with their cause they’re fighting because they’re either forced to or they believe in it.

Respect does not lead to outright support, though. Were I to be put in a position where I had to take a captive, I would call him/her “Sir/Ma’am”, I would treat them with as much dignity as the situation allowed, but I wouldn’t give them a loaded weapon and tell them to shoot me with it.

There’s a vast difference between respecting your enemy and giving them aid and comfort.

87

So is it your contention that if the gates were flung open the vast majority of US citizens would leave? I doubt it. People are fighting to get INTO the country. I don’t see any mass movement of people wanting to leave.

88

What exactly does “Supporting Our Troops” supposed to entail?

Does it mean helping troops out with your tax dollars? Because everybody who makes money and is not a tax evader does that.

Perhaps it means not criticizing the Commander-In-Chief Since it would “demoralize” our troops. But if that’s what they mean than why not replace the sticker with “Pay your taxes. Keep your mouth shut”? That’s what the vast majority of americans are doing anyway!

Or does it mean that I give some sort of intangible moral support by being the 100 millionth person to put a “Support Our Troops” bumpersticker and a miniature American Flag on my car? What’s the point in that? Aren’t there better methods of support than that?

Perhaps pressuring my Congressman to give the troops higher pay and better healthcare? I could go with that. That would actually be doing something tangible with real benefits for the actual troops instead of benefiting the neoconservative ideology of the current administration. That form of support I could go for.

89

You know what I think “supporting the troops” means?

It means not calling us criminals. It means giving us some of that “intangible moral support” that means everything when you’re stuck in a tent in the middle of Bumfuck with no ability to see or speak to our families. It means welcoming us home when we get back. It means thanking us for doing a difficult job, whether you agree with the politics or not.

I’m not asking you to like President Bush. I’m not even asking you to like me. But I’d rather you said nothing at all if your inclination is to refer to soldiers as “sheeple”, or “unthinking robots”, or whatever perjorative comes to mind. I volunteered to fight for my country and to obey the orders of the superiors appointed over me. I didn’t fight the Iraqis because I wanted to kill people, I fought the Iraqis because I thought it was the right thing for the benefit of my fellow citizens, the world, and the oppressed Iraqis. I was told that that was what I would be doing, and I did so willingly.

The soldiers that tortured the Iraqi prisoners should be tried, convicted, and thrown in jail. They are unworthy of the uniform, and they are unworthy of my respect. They do not represent what the United States armed forces or the United States in general are all about. I wish some of you would keep that in mind from time to time.

90

Yea, because military enlistees are level headed mature individuals.

Please. They are no more or less mature than frat boys. The military bases have some of the highest rates of pregnancy and rape on the planet, and hazing is epidemic. I just know how age 20-ish young people act, and it has nothing to do with being in the military.

I never said they spit on each other because they are in the military. I said military people happen to display immature behavior.

The sense of sarcasm of most airmen you know must be pretty low, as well. Thank you again for being a shining example of the best this country has to offer.

/salute

91

I dunno, if I was standing there watching a US Marine shove a flashlight up some Iraqi kid’s ass, I would probably side on calling him a criminal. You earn the distinction of “not being a criminal” by “not being a criminal,” not by joining the military. I won’t hesitate for a split second to call a criminal in the military for what he/she is, and I won’t feel bad about it because they “risked their life” “defending freedom” for “the American people” while they were raping prisoners in a jail in Iraq or carpetbombing Fallujah.

I’ll “support” someone who is doing something I find worthy, not because they are given a gun and a flag.

BTW, given your earlier tirade about me being so below the high standards of the USAF, it must GALL you that the USAF was going to give me a full, free ride through Berkeley ROTC, but I turned it down, ironically because I didn’t want to serve under Clinton. Boy, best call I ever made. O_o

92

Where are you getting that from? I have no idea how many Americans would leave if they had the option; in addition to the insurmountable legal obstacles there are many other practical barriers to moving to a foreign country. My point, which I think I made pretty clear, is that it’s ridiculous to say “if you don’t like X, you should move to another country,” if for no other reason than few of us have that option. None of us get to choose our fellow countrymen, and it’s annoying when people attempt to create their own narrow definitions of who is a decent American.

93

Not directing this at you, but I do agree that the above mentality is entirely anti-democratic. Whenever someone says that, it is just sad. Like they flocked to wherever Republicans would flock to under Clinton. Nope, they sat around and bitched because he got more sex than they were.

94

Since the minority got it’s way I would not call the last presidential election democratic. :wink:

95

I was being sarcastic, not nasty. And thats how I read your response, a ‘pity poor me I’m an American’. If thats not how you intended it then I simply mis-underheard you.

I’ll take your word for it, never having tried (and having zero desire to) gain citizenship in another country (wasn’t that difficult to immigrate here, and my father was a farmer before we came here). I don’t think its something most American’s would even contemplate to be honest. They aren’t ‘stuck’ here as you are implying…they choose to stay here because even flawed its one of the best places to live in the world (IMHO)…based on our own immigration stats, a lot of others agree. It certainly beat the hell out of Mexico, where I was born.

I find it hard to believe that someone with valuable skills or who is educated would have that much trouble finding SOME country they could immigrate too. What about France or one of the other EU countries? Britian? I know Australia is fairly difficult as they have pretty exacting standards, but I didn’t think Canada would be that tough for an American to gain citizenship. How about some of the pacific rim countries?

Well, I don’t remember explicitly stating this, but I could be wrong. HOwever, I’ll explicity state it now…IMO the majority of US citizens DO choose to stay here because here is where they want to be. In addition, I’ll explicitly state that a hell of a lot of OTHER people from other countries ALSO want to come here to live. If you have some kind of proof I’m in error, I’d love to see it.

You bring this up again that leaving is not a choice for most people and therefore they are stuck. Do you have a cite for this? I’m willing to take your word for it in the preceeding paragraph, but I think I’d like some evidence now that this is the case. WHY would the majority of Americans (assuming they are dieing to get out of the country of course :dubious: ) not be able to immigrate to some other country? Because other countries don’t WANT immigrants from the US in general, or because they don’t want immigrants at all. And if the latter…is that REALLY somewhere you are dieing to get into?

BTW, my understanding is that in some countries in Europe their birthrate isn’t keeping up with the mortality rate…in other words they have a negative population growth (the implication being they NEED immigration). Also, I know that a lot of people immigrate from OTHER countries to several European countries (witness the influx of people from muslim countries in France for instance), so I can’t see why they would block Americans. Could you explain this seeming contridiction?

Ya…your hint is, try reading back through my previous posts. I kind of already went over this, at least brushed on it. I don’t really feel like getting into more depth on MY understanding of citizenship in this particular thread, as the discussion we are currently having is close to a hijack. If you want to start a thread on the meaning of citizenship I will be glad to join in and give you my two cents. However, in THIS thread I’ve already layed out a number of my positions, so why would I want to go over them again?

-XT

96

I suppose this is a hijack, but I really can’t let this one pass without comment:

I raise the bullshit flag on the underscored bit. According to the Laws of Unarmed Conflict (LOAC)) “I was only following orders” is not considered a defense for a subordinate obeying an unlawful order.

According to this site:

The above comes from an official USAF website that is used to help train soldiers in LOAC. It is an annual requirement, and they emphasize that compliance with LOAC overrides the chain of command. Even if a general officer commands an unlawful act (the events at Abu Ghraib [sp?], for instance), you are lawfully required to refuse to comply and report the violation. Sure, telling a general to “go to hell” is dangerous, but military life is tough. If I’m expected to go where the bullets are flying under lawful orders (with the attendant risk of getting injured or killed), then expecting me to refuse to comply with unlawful orders (with the possibility of superiors making my life a living hell) does not seem to be any more dangerous, IMNSHO.

–SSgtBaloo

97

Now that I have had time to think (and am no longer smashed), I would like to expand on my earlier points.

Not only do I not feel obligated to display respect for soldiers, I, in fact, feel obligated to be suspicious of them, to question their actions, and to hold them to a higher level of standards.

Why? First of all, they are granted greater, lethal power, and must obviously practice greater responsibility. Second of all, like politicians and government officials and agents, they are representatives of our nation, so their shoes should be shinier than the rest of ours. They are the symbol of American relations. When their name is muddied, the name of America is muddied, as demonstrated to good effect with the recent scandals. Thirdly, it is the responsible citizen’s place in a democracy to question their government and the agents thereof. Every citizen has a civic duty to not accept anything at face value, but rather, to educate themselves about it, arrive and an opinion, and voice that opinion in the electoral and other processes.

Given these three points, it is FAR more patriotic to hold the military to a strict, high standard and continually question and judge their actions, not to mention motives. Given that, the people who parrot supporting the government during wartime are gutter dogs who should be spat upon with whatever saliva we have left.

The government, and by extension, military of a democracy NEEDS to be questioned reguarly. THAT is our civic duty, rather than undying support of their actions. Asking the men and women who serve to be placed under this higher scrutiny is not unfair - it is a mantle that comes with being given the power to enforce government policy and law. When you pick up a gun in the name of America, you had damned well better live up to that name, and if you fail criminally, you should be punished to the greatest extent possible.

We do not give officers of the law lethal force and also more leeway to use it - we tightly restrain their powers, some say to a crippling degree. We need to apply the same concepts to the military. When you are found being a criminal while serving, the weight on your shoulders should be far greater than a civilian’s - and you need to be carefully and closely watched.

98

As I understand it, one of the things that’s really, really, really, really drummed into recruits in the service is the importance of following orders. The importance of following them swiftly, without complaint or much thought of any kind.

I’m betting during their training in which they are daily if not hourly inculcated with the importance of following orders, they hear maybe two or three times during the whole of their training something like this:

Here’s the way I think the average serviceperson would interpret the preceding passage: You are always supposed to follow orders. At some point your CO might fuck up and give you an illegal order. You’re fucked if you don’t do it because you’re always supposed to follow orders. So do it. If it’s later found to be illegal, it’ll be your ass that’s on the line, because we wrote this here paragraph putting your ass on the line. Have a nice day … and that’s an order!

99

(Underscore added)

I take it then, that you are not the voice of experience on this subject (basic training). In the U.S. military, *that *sort of obedience is not encouraged (I’m USAF-Ret., so YMMV – veterans of other services are welcome to chime in). In any case, LOAC is a standing order of utmost importance. It outranks your sergeant, your captain, and just about everybody on up the chain right up to and including the President himself. It’s sort of like the prime directives of Star Trek, except no-one gets a wink and a nod when they violate it, unlike a certain fictional starship captain.

Nope! It’s more a matter of “You are always supposed to follow **lawful **orders. At some point your CO might fuck up and give you an illegal order. You’re fucked if you do it because you’re always supposed to follow **lawful **orders. So don’t do it.”

If you’re able to overcome your sense of self preservation to put yourself in harm’s way, you’d better be able to stand up to a commanding officer when he’s way the hell outta line (and violating LOAC is about as out of line as you can get). Obeying an unlawful order just means that you get to share a jail cell with the S.O.B. who issued the order (figuratively, of course).

Of course, if military service is as corrupt as you imply, the mook who disobeys an unlawful order will still go to jail, while his boss gets a handful of medals.

–SSgtBaloo :wally

100

I know that’s the party line but I think it is expecting a lot of a 20 year old private to publicly stand up to even a 2nd Lt. If an officer would give an unlawful order then at the later trial he or she wouldn’t hesitate to lie about it and deny having done it. And for another thing, the officer is a member of the club and the private isn’t. I know that the troops are given regular exposure to the rules but to expect ordinary soldiers to feel themselves on solid ground when disputing their commander on the grounds of miltary law is asking a lot.