I can see a few problems with the “Support Our Troops” mentality:
[ol]
[li]It’s largely a selfish notion. Somebody puts a “Support Our Troops” bumper sticker on their car, and… what does this accomplish exactly? Am I supposed to be swayed by the powerful argument contained in those three words? Naw. It’s just a way for Joe Sixpack to feel good about himself and let everyone else know it. (The exception to this selfishness is those people who send gift boxes to the troops. You put your money where your mouth is.)[/li]
[li]“The Troops.” What, it’s some sort of monolithic entity? Well, I guess it is, sort of, but it’s a stupid one. All these men and women have in common is that they’re in the military. That says nothing about their personal conduct or moral fiber. I might as well make a sign saying “Support Asian-Americans between 23 and 34 who are Capricorns.” No, rather than give blanket support to a group, which inevitably leads to giving support to 10% human scum, I’ll give my support to individuals on a case by case basis.[/li]
[li]As clairobscur has noted, why “our” troops? If we’re supporting “our” troops because they’ve got the juevos to put their lives on the line, shouldn’t this support extend to anyone who does the same? Not just the obvious cases, like firefighters and policeman, but to the cases we don’t like to think about? Like the enemy? Why is there a simple equation of “Risk your life = You’re supported”?[/li]
[li]It’s based on what is often a myth, or at least a somewhat archaic archetype – that of the glorious soldier, valiantly sacrificing all for the Good of the Nation. In fact, I’d contend (no cite, so feel free to disagree) that most soldiers these days join up for the “perks.” College tuition, medical benefits, gainful employment, travel opportunities, etc. In this thread, Jman said he joined for the tuition to an Ivy League school. My brother signed up for college money, too. This is anectdotal, sure, but I think it’s probably common. Is someone who picks up a rifle for the sole purpose of defending my country worthy of respect? Assuming they’re not a rapist or whatever, sure. But are all troops like that? Well… you’d have a hard time convincing me.[/li]
[li]Finally, I reject the notion that the troops are fully divorced from the decision making process. Unless you were conscripted, you DID make a decision when you enlisted. For better or for worse, it was your decision to make. You did it for the college money? I contend that there are other options (Community College, student loans, etc). You did it to serve your country? This line of thinking seems to posit that only soldiers serve their country, a notion I hope we can all reject. You did it because you want to honorably protect your country? And, when you signed up, there wasn’t an evil President who could send you to do Bad Things? You’re not getting off that easily. You knew fully well when you signed up that you could be asked to do things you didn’t want to, and you said, “Yeah, I know, sign me up anyways.” You don’t get a pass now.[/li][/ol]
Also, maybe you can clear something up for xtisme. Can you answer these questions?
[ul]
[li]A 16 year-old girl has an alcoholic mother who drives drunk one day and kills somebody. Is the girl responsible, because she’s in the same family as the alcoholic?[/li][li]A Basque shoemaker who lives next door to a violent Separatist. If the Separatist blows up a building in Madrid, is our shoemaker responsible, simply by virtue of being Basque?[/li][li]A janitor has worked at ConCo for 20 years. When ConCo is broken up for Insider Trading, is the janitor responsible, because he is part of the same company?[/li][li]A corporal does his duty. The Lieutenant above him is courtmarshalled for rape. Is the corporal responsible, because they’re in the same Army?[/li][/ul]
To put it another way: why am I responsible for the behavior of those above me (in your line of reasoning, the President and Congress) simply because I was born here? I contend that a person is responsible for their actions, as well as the actions of those under their care/command/tutelage/etc. Is this not so?
I agree with that. A person is responsible for his actions and the actions of those below his command. Not for the actions of people above.
Ah, thought this thread and died. I see my name mentioned a few times though so I’ll respond.
I’m assuming you want me to clear some things up for you, not someone to clear some things up for me? On that assumption I’ll answer:
No, why would she be? Is she a participating member in her mothers decision to drive drunk? She is a minor with no say. This doesn’t equate to responsibility of a voting citizen towards his/her government. Was it supposed to?
Again, you totally missed my point about the difference between totalitarian governments (or movements) and democracy. Your Basque has no say at all in the Basque Separatist movement, no input at all in its decision process. He has no input at all in fact. Why would he be responsible in any way for its actions? You and I on the other hand DO vote for our government, so we ARE involved in the process, therefore we ARE to some degree responsible for its actions. Ok, so most of you disagree with me on this…its just my opinion and you are entitled to your own. But why these false analogies keep getting brought up so that I can pretty much just say the same thing over and over again in different ways is beyond me. If you don’t agree with me, asking me in different ways is unlikely to elicite a different response.
Did the janitor have any input into the decision process of the company? Did he vote for the Board of Directors, did he vote for the CEO? No? Are you starting to get the point? I feel like I’ve beat this dead horse into paste in this thread.
<must restrain myself from another rolley eyes…must, must, must!> Of course not. I think no further explainations are needed on this, do you?
Because you are an empowered citizen in a democracy. If you don’t like it (i.e. ‘just because I was born here’) then you have the option of going to another nation where you won’t be responsible. In a democracy (not just in the US) people EMPOWER the government by their vote. The government REPRESENTS us. The President represents us as a whole…the Congress represents us, the Senate, your local government. It derives its power from the people…we GIVE it to them to serve us. Therefore we are responsible for its actions…if we don’t like them, its our duty to change things, to vote for what we DO want, to make our displeasure felt.
So no…its not so, at least not in MY philosophy. YRMV of course, and you can think anything you like.
Ah, I see my good friend annaplurabelle has also graced me with a post. As the post is getting overly long I’m going to just hit this fast. This seems to be going towards hijack and I think it really would be better as a separate thread…don’t you annaplurabelle? If you choose to make a separate thread on this I promise to be more civil in it…if you do the same. 
I admitted no such thing. Where do you GET this stuff from?? I SAID that I couldn’t figure out how your first paragraph fitted in, nor have any idea what the hell you were getting at.
My quote:
posted right next to YOUR quote:
I said WHAT before? You don’t say. No basis? You don’t clarify. GW an idiot? Where the hell did THAT come from? So, I don’t really see why you are being so stuborn on this…your paragraph made no sense to me in conjunction to what you actually quoted BY me, and I was asking what the hell you were talking about.
I then went on to say that the REST of your post, while no model of clarity, was at least understandable. And from THIS you get that I ‘feigned confusion, phony indignation, and personal insults anyway’? Hell, I’m starting to think personal insults are the only thing you DO understand.
Yes…I’m offering my personal opinion and evaluation of ObL…as are you. And you want a cite for it? Well, I don’t mind doing one (though frankly I doubt there will be anything definitive, as I’ve never seen a clear evaluation of ObL on this topic), but I think I’ll beg off until and unless you decide to start a separate thread on this. I think my use of YOUR cite to make my point was perfectly valid…and that neither of us (or probably many other people) REALLY know how much or little ObL knows or understands about the US.
From my readings by him and various other opinions of him my take is he doesn’t really understand or NEED to understand a lot about us. He has his own agenda, and thats to spark a holy war between Islam and the West (personified by the US), and to create a monolithic Islamic state in the ME. Don’t agree? Well, thats your right. If you want to carry this further, I’ll be happy to give my two cents on our pal Osama in a separate (and less volitile) thread.
As to the rest of your vitriol at me…well, I’m also letting that slide as well. Too much has been dumped in this thread IMO (and admittedly, I did my share). If you want to take this up further, I think this hijack should have a thread of its own…or we could take the discussion off line where maybe we could be a bit more civil to each other. If not…whatever.
-XT
It’s seems silly that I’m hijacking this thread again to make this point, but it’s even sillier that you keep repeating this falsehood. It’s not true, and it doesn’t even advance your argument.
Apparently you think you’ve already done this, but it seems that the rest of us keep missing your response. Please define “responsible” in this context. It’s difficult to have an argument about whether or not we’re “responsible” for the actions of our government if we don’t know which sense of the word you using.
Well, if its a hijack then perhaps it also deserves its own thread (whats the meaning of citizenship in a democracy…or if your point was about immigrating from the US to other nations, then that as the topic). Feel free to do one if you wish…if not, I might try out a separate thread on this one myself if I find the time later (on the meaning of citizenship). I’ll also drop THIS aspect of the hijack after this, as I have no wish to further hijack this thread (I see that this would be my second hijack, counting my discussion with annaplurabelle about ObL.
As to my ‘repeating this falsehood’, I’m not sure if you mean that people in a democracy are empowered, or that you mean you have options to go to another country. Neither is exactly a ‘falsehood’, as I KNOW of people who are ex-pat Americans living in other countries, nor is the fact that citizens in a democracy are empowered to vote. Now, if you want to say that this doen’t make them responsible for the actions of their government, thats something else entirely…its a matter of debate, not truth or falsehood.
However, if you want to feel that my repeated statement is a falsehood, suit yourself. For something to be a falsehood though, you need to PROVE its false. You certainly haven’t proven that American’s can’t immigrate to other countries (only that its hard in SOME other countries), nor that citizens empower their government, which were the two points made in the quote you brought up.
-XT
xtisme, first off, thanks for catching my misphrased question. I did want YOU to clear up things for ME, not vice versa. And I think I get you now. I just disagree. Perhaps I should have replaced “janitor” in my list of questions with “stockholder.” Said stockholder has no decision-making power, much like I have no decision-making power in the workings of the US. However, both the stockholder and I are “involved” in our companies or countries, respectively. Should we fault the stockholders if the company they invest in is corrupt? (I’m not talking about a Bill Gates or whatever, I’m talking about a normal person who owns, say, $1000 of stock.)
I contend that the stockholder has as much say in the running of the company as I do in the running of America. That is, yes, “some” power, but it’s basically negligible. You apparently disagree. But at least I got you to admit that it’s your opinion and not some iron-clad fact. So either convince us that you’re right, or let reasonable people disagree. And you can stop with the self-martyring “Did you people even read what I’ve been writing?” claptrap. Assume that we’ve read it and disagree with it.
Frankly, I didn’t realize that there were different interperatations of the word ‘responsible’ in the contexts I’ve been talking about, and that there was no reason to define it. But sure, if thats what you want:
I’m using the term as defined by number 2: Something for which one is responsible; a duty, obligation, or burden. Citizens are responsible for their government because collectively we empower said government and are ultimately responsible (duty, obligation, burden) for its actions. Clearer?
-XT
Disagreement is what makes this board so interesting.
Yes, your stockholder is a better example, but not in the way you mean I don’t think. See, stockholders DO have input into the decision process. Sure, if you have a small amount of stock, your input is pretty small, but you DO have some say…even if you just have $1000 in stock in a multi-billion dollar company.
As a citizen, you also have some say, and you also have input in the decision process. You vote for the folks that best represent you…they make the decisions FOR you (and me and everyone else). Your input is to vote for the person (or propositions being voted on locally) that best represents you, so that your views are expressed. In addition, you can always agitate for change, to be pro-active.
Take the anti-war movement in the 60’s for instance. It was a political movement by the minority (to start with) that eventually changed the mindsets of the majority, and ultimately the policies of the US.
Ah, but we are talking about a collective here. We all implicitely agree to go along with the majority view…less, why have a country based on democratic principals? We could have an absolute monarchy or some other totalitarian government to rid ourselves of the tyrany of the masses. But by living here we enter into a social contract with our fellow citizens to abide by the will of the majority (even if ‘the majority’ are too lazy to actually vote). This isn’t a suicide pact of course, so its ALSO our responsibility (there’s that word again) to agitate for change if we feel its important, to be informed and make informed decisions, etc. However, by our social contract with our fellow citizens, we ARE responsible for our government, even when its not our choice of candidates that has won.
As to my self-martyring stuff, I just feel like I’m saying the same things over and over again ad nausium. Ok, people don’t agree with me…but they keep asking me to clarify the same things, over and over again as if my answers are going to change. They aren’t. This is what I believe. Am I wrong? Perhaps. But if I am, then PROVE me wrong, don’t ask me to repeat myself (which is how I felt about a lot of the posts directed at me in this thread). After all, it IS just my opinion, and people are completely free to disagree with me to their hearts content. Won’t be the first or last time, I can assure you.
-XT
You artfully evaded answring the question again.
As for this:
It was the bodies in black bags that changed public opinion, not a handful of protesters.
Would you care to clarify that? Don’t assume I have any idea of what you are talking about, as I am keeping track of a half dozen threads and I’m at work atm. If you have a point, please make it.
There were a hell of a lot more body bags in WWII, WWI, and the Civil War…yet public opinion didn’t change. There were less body bags in Korea, but still a significant amount, yet public opinion didn’t change. Why is that Dog80? Perhaps because it was CHANGED by the protest movement? Or maybe it was just an accident…
-XT
I was refering to the stockholder question. But before that, I’ll tell you my opinion on attacking civilians.
Since the dawn of time, attacking civilians was a very demeaning act. I believe that’s because civilians are really not responsible for the actions of the government and are simply minding their own business.
On the other hand, it is ok to attack the military. The military has always been the government’s right hand and its instrument of exercising power. Attacking the military=attacking the government itself.
If we accept your position that civilians are responsible for the actions of their governments, then attacking civilians is not bad at all. Actually, that’s OBL’s justification of his terrorist acts.
On the black bags:
It is a function of the number of black bags and how reasonable a war is. For example, in WWII, the danger of Germany (or their allies) attacking the US was present and iminent. No matter how many black bags would return, the public opinion would still support the war.
Not so in Vietnam war. The US was not threatened directly by the VC. The same with Iraq today. The public is restless because they cannot see the reasoning behind the war.
On stockholders:
Stockholders have no responsibility for the actions of the CEO of the company they support. It is called “limited liability”. The CEO might be jailed in case of misconduct, but not the stockholders. I believe the same thing applies between a government and its citizens.
Ok Dog80…thanks for clarifying. Though some people think I’m being coy, its sometimes hard to follow peoples arguements when so many different tangents start popping up in a thread…or when you are involved in multiple threads.
Well, military’s throughout the ages disagree. There have been MANY times where warring countries have specifically targetted civilians because they grew the food and provided the money for the opposing army.
Even in ‘modern’ times civilian populations were targetted deliberately because civilians were the ones who manufactured the equipment and food that were necessary to modern armies. Look at WWII for example. Its only been fairly recently with the advent of percision guided munitions and a growing unease (to say the least) with deliberately targetting civilians that has changed this.
(as an aside I think a good case could be made that empowered democratic civilians are who REALLY changes this, both in the US and in Europe, as it became unacceptable for them, inspite of the military utility of targetting civilians. Just my opinion.)
Even so, civilians still die in any conflict because sometimes they are just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Personally I think ObL’s take on this is (I realize others disagree with this) he see’s the US population as the means that supply the military with money and food in the form of taxes. Its a pretty old school way to look at it. While the logic is appalling IMO, its still there…civilians, even unempowered civilians, ARE a target to that mindset. While I understand the logic I of course totally disagree with the implementation btw…I also am a product of our age, culture and political system, and the deliberate targetting of civilians is sickening to me. Hell, I get queasy when civilians are unavoidably killed in a military operation by my country (or anyone elses for that matter), and I was in the service.
Its still bad by our culture and standard whether they are empowered citizens or not because they are non-combatants. Its only justification if you are already pre-disposed to this line of thinking…and this is a line of thinking quite common in our more barbaric past. Its the justification that medieval Europeans used when putting enemy villages and fields to the torch, that the great Khans armies used when burning and pillaging cities in the far east, that Sherman used when marching to the sea…and that both sides used during WWII when targetting each others cities.
Unfortunately not everyone has progressed beyond this particular barbaric ‘justification’, and whether ObL kills civilians because he thinks they are empowered citizens responsible for the actions of their government, or whether he attacks them because they provide the taxes that are the life blood of the US military…or he kills them simply because he wants to cause terror in a population, the fact remains he does it and will continue to do it…with or without ‘justification’ And with or without ‘justification’ its STILL wrong in this day and age IMO.
At first I didn’t make the connection you were talking about body bags. Well, I seriously doubt, after the first year of war, that many people SERIOUSLY thought the US could be attacked directly. Also, I’d say Japan was more on peoples minds as to a possible invasion than Germany ever was. There was also no real protest for Korea, yet a hell of a lot of body bags were filled there as well…and no one was saying Korea was a direct or indirect threat to the US.
I suppose that you have a valid point though. Certainly the threat of destruction is a more powerful motivator than a mere foriegn war…and democracies are notorious for not WANTING wars in the first place and resisting them.
I still think that the protest movement in the US during the 60’s had a profound change on America and the administration at the time. Early in the decade people were either apathetic or supported the war…but by the end of the decade the tide was shifting…and I think this had to do directly with the protest movement. Now, whether it was inspired by those body bags, or by the reporting of the time, or by other factors I can’t say…probably all of them and a few others besides. But I don’t think it was ONLY because of the body bags that the protest movement shifted US policies in Vietnam. However, its just my opinion…take it with a grain of salt.
As a general statement this simply doesnt hold up. In most companies that have publically traded stocks, the stockholders DO get to vote on certain items effecting the company. I’ve done so myself (well, I gave my proxy vote to someone voting as I wished). Even the smallest stockholder has SOME say in this type of company. Generally LLC companies (thats what the company I own is btw) DON’T have publically traded stock…so they don’t have stockholders.
However, lets say you are right that stockholders have no say at all in a company. In that case it DOESN’T equate at all to a citizen. Because you DO have some say…WE do, the collective we. Remember WE empower the government…its our government, its accountable to us, to do what our collective will based on the ‘majority’ wants it to do. Thats the social contract we all implicitely agree to by living in a democracy. We will abide by the will of the majority, but its still OUR collective government. If the government steps out of line, or if the majority no longer agrees with the direction the government is going in (like my anti-war movement example), its answerable to us, and we vote in a new government which is more in line with our collective will.
Individually I’m sure many of you (and even me) dont feel we really count…ours is one small vote in 280 million plus. Thats probably the reason that more people don’t vote (either that or they are simply lazy IMO)…people feel their vote doesn’t count. Thats just wrong. Your vote DOES count. Politicians follow the voting trends very carefully…they follow polls very carefully. They shape their policies based on such trends and polls.
I don’t know how else to convey this. I’ve kind of used up all the different ways I have to say the same thing. I believe this. I believe that the citizens in a democracy empowers the government, not the other way around. I believe that the people are ultimately responsible for their governments decisions and actions, and they are responsible to get rid of a government they don’t agree with or is moving in a direction contrary to the collective will of the majority. I believe that its our collective government, even if individually we didn’t vote for the current government in power.
There are two sides to that…first it IS our government even if we dislike the folks in it at the time…we can’t simply disassociate ourselves from it just because our candidate didn’t win. Second, its our duty to get out and vote and encourage others to do the same, to make an informed decision based on our beliefs when voting.
Of course YRMV, and this is only MY take on it. I’m kind of an old school liberatarian type, who believes in the republic and all it stands for.
-XT
Well, Xtisme I sure am glad you’ll take responsibility for the murder of 45 men, women, and children at a wedding celebration while the General and soldiers truly responsible refuse to, because well , you know, “bad things happen in war. I don’t have to apoligize for the conduct of my men.”.
Well, devilsknew, I’m unhappy that you don’t take responsibility when your country makes mistakes like this, and simply wash your hands saying, “Hey, wasn’t ME. He’s not MY president, its not MY military. Bummer for those dead, but don’t blame it on ME.” I’m also unable to make either you or that general BE responsible…that has to come from inside. And ya…I AM responsible for those deaths, and ya, they DO weigh heavily on my soul. Too bad they don’t do the same for you. Thats duty and responsibility.
As to the gist of your thread, I addressed my points in the thread dedicated to the it. It seems more information is coming to light, and as it does so I may radically alter not only my perception of what happened, but my take on it. Thats because I consider myself a good citizen, who’s duty it is to be informed about things like this, to weigh them and to judge them…and to judge the actions of MY country. If it turns out that this was NOT an unavoidable mistake, then I will be joining my voice to the hue and cry DEMANDING that those responsible TAKE responsibility for their actions…and be punished for them as well.
You on the other hand can wash your hands if you like. Easier that way I’m sure.
-XT
Oh please. Spare us the righteous sarcasm already.
Tell me how your "taking responsibility, as defined by you in your post, is anything more than lip service to the concept. What’s the outcome difference between your claim of “responsibility” and someone who claims they are not responsible because they don’t support the war, troops, pres., etc?
It “weighs heavy” on a lot of people - even people who are technically out of your own definition of the sphere of responsibility, since they are not part of the coalition - so where is your actionable duty or responsibility?
You might be able to make a case for “burden”, hypothetically, in the sense that you are a target of reprisal, but all the rest of us can make the same claim, whether we accept your version of responsibility or not. And you must admit, the odds are, you will not become a target, and therefore suffer no consequences as part of your lip service to responsibility.
Here’s an op-ed from Michael Berg, Nick Berg’s father, in the Guardian (of course, it wouldn’t appear in the US media, would it):
My emphasis. So tell me, what kind of responsibility are you preaching, that involves no actions or consequences?
Without action or consequence, “Support the Troops”/“Responsibility, xtisme Style” is just lip service and jingoism - except in the literal sense for those of us who pay taxes (more on that later, btw - I plan/hope to reply to some of your previous post shortly)…
Bull. Refusing to support the troops, the war, the pres., etc. isn’t necessarilly easy, or the equivalent of doing nothing. There are protesters, petitioners, resisters, deserters,etc. - people taking action even though (or perhaps because) they decry responsibility for this govt.'s actions.
You are the one taking the easy way out - waiting for conclusive evidence to “somehow appear” before you take an active role. Considering your typical criteria for actionable concern or outcry (based on previous threads), I imagine children will be be reading about it in history books before you give up your sceptical stance (if then).
Problem is that I’m not “the people”. “the people” is an abstract entity. I don’t feel included in this “we” if I precisely voted and/or acted to prevent a given government (not an abstract government) from representing “us”.
But anyway it isn’t my point. My point is, for the third time : “Can you define the kind of responsability you’re talking about?”
Is it a financial responsability (a soldier in “my” army tortured someone so I must indemnize the victim)? A moral responsability (I’m supposed to feel guilty because this soldier tortured someone)? A legal responsability (I should be thrown to jail because this soldier tortured someone)? Something else? What, exactly? Once again, your argument are totally meaningless and empty as long as you don’t tell us what you mean by “we’re responsible”.
And one time more : when does this responsability ends, exactly? If I applied for citizenship in every possible other country and my applications have been rejected (say, I don’t have any useful skill) , am I still responsible? Was this american citizen who had been sentenced for fighting along with the talibans still responsible for any harm done by the US army in Afghanistan? What level of opposition to my governement’s policies, if any, would liberate me for that responsability you’re bestowing upon me?
Weird. You’ve been saying in the whole thread that you’re responsible for your government and troops actions, but now you want “those responsible” to be punished. Why suddenly aren’t you included any more? Are you responsible or are you not?
Oh, you’ve got to be kidding me. Sure, speaking your mind and opposing the war, getting ostricized from teary-eyed bandwagon patriots, criticized from friends and family, flamed in the media, calld “Saddamites” by the SDSAB, and all that is easier than waving your little American flag and eating a ho-ho.
I’m sorry you are so persecuted for your wild beliefs in supporting the war! Poor you! Must be so lonely, having to stand up for what you believe in and all.