Just to understand your position, OP, if I advocate for a war that you personally deem to be “needless” or “senseless” or that you otherwise disagree with, theb I should enlist if I am able bodied.
What if the war has vast popular support and/or is one that you personally believe is a just war? Am I then shielded from your scorn if I choose not to enlist yet still support the war?
In all cases, if you find a way to make a significant sacrifice and contribution, then I wouldn’t consider you a coward. I might still consider you a warmonger, depending on the circumstances, which would earn you plenty of scorn.
iiandyiiii, by saying “thank you for your participation” you are scaring away the conversants. It seems that you understand my position, but just so you know I still do not understand your position.
I do not understand how you can support the above quoted text, but deny both 1) that you value security over liberty, and 2) that your argument is assuming the conclusion I want to debate.
Specifically, the conclusion is that society considers a particular military action to be “beyond the pale”. By using ad-hominem attacks you are denying society the open debate it deserves according to the principles of liberty. I don’t understand your position.
~Max
I don’t believe that social shaming - even the worst types of social shaming (assuming there’s no legal consequences) - can affect liberty. I believe liberty is about what folks are prevented from doing be force of law, not what they are dissuaded from doing by force if societal disapproval. Social shaming can still be a very bad thing in many circumstances, and harm things like fairness and neighborliness and similar concepts on society.
I’m not sure what you mean by #2 above.
As far as your last paragraph - my position may be dissuading certain arguments, but it’s not denying anything, any more than we’re denied open debate about sex with children.
My position really is quite simple to understand if you accept (or imagine accepting) my supposition that, in almost all cases, warmongering is as bad as child sex advocacy.
I think I do understand. It’s a natural part of outgrowth of iiiiandyiiiii’s general approach that debating issues is about who is most moral, according to iandyiiiii. Whoever is purest morally (same basis, according to that poster) wins. It’s not about the open debate based on ideas.
It’s an increasingly common formula particularly on iiiiiandyii’s side of the political spectrum, though the other side has also imitated it more in recent years unfortunately.
Whether it’s a good idea for the US to take military action or ‘go to war’ with Iran is based on whether that’s in the best interests of the US and/or the world in general. It’s not about any particular person’s participation. As it happens it’s questionable if there’s any real constituency for doing that at this time, but anyway.
That’s not to say one can’t question US participation in any of the wars it has participated in, including the popular ones viewed as successful (the two tend to go together). War is a terrible thing, there’s no reasonable debate about that IMO. And more specifically about the pattern of US involvement in the Mideast in recent decades, criticizing that is definitely not exclusive to either side of the political divide. Intense partisans on either side who worry about more US Mideast involvements or wars have to come to terms with the fact that some elements of the ‘morally inferior’ other side agree with them. 
Calling out someone for being insincere or cowardly isn’t any kind of constraint on someone else’s freedom to speak or act.
It is very much a constraint on someone’s ability to speak or act without the consequence of judgment. So this thread continues in typical conservative bizarro-world fashion in which conservatives demand the world be their safe space to act badly and not have to suffer the indignity of hearing others say they’re acting badly, and it constitutes persecution if they are not afforded this safe space.
Oh give it a rest. Conservatives have absolutely no problem whatsoever invoking personal cost in every single other area of public debate. This is very familiar to everyone:
Conservative men when the poor suggest higher taxes: "Well of course it doesn’t affect YOU, you’re too poor to make money, you parasite.
Conservative men which the rich suggest higher taxes: “Well of course it doesn’t affect YOU, you have plenty of money to pay, you limousine liberal.”
Conservative men when Bolton suggests men of service age should die in Iran: “Hold on buddy, no need to make this personal, let’s step back and weigh this on the merits.”
I’ll disagree with this characterization of my arguments (not surprisingly I think I usually do a good job of arguing stuff on the facts and merits), but I do like all the i’s. 
It’s my opinion that the OP’s opinion that using attempts at public shaming as a method of changing attitudes isn’t worth the breath it uses but my father told me Everybody’s entitled to their own opinion, no matter how ridiculous. About advocacy and opinions, he also learnt me to consider the source.
Concerning a situation in which military action is contemplated, if it’s the correct action then it’s the correct action, no matter the source/their background.
Now you can call me a coward or you can call me a hypocrite
But you doesn’t hasta call me Johnson!
As always,
Ray Jay
I’m also a Navy vet (which is only 1 step above the Air Force, which is only 1 step above civilians 
What is a “significant sacrifice and contribution”? Imagine a WWII scenario that (I suppose) would have your support. Doesn’t the country still need accountants, lawyers, farmers, doctors, and teachers? What if I am one of them? Is that good enough or am I a cowardly weakling for not joining the military?
If you’re looking for moral validation, WW2 probably shouldn’t be your first stop. Draft classifications were a thing. I think my grandfather would have happily joined the infantry. But he wasn’t called to do that because the nation decided that we needed aircraft machinists more than infantrymen. We don’t have draft boards anymore, so your choice to serve (or not) only reflects your own needs and values.
Now that I think of it, I think America would benefit greatly for an Israel-style draft, with modifications. Every male between 18 and 50 must serve 4 years. Assume the Air Force and Navy fills their quotas within the first 72 hours of this policy taking effect (which it will). You can only join the Army or Marines. You could be a truck driver or cook, but those specialties will fill up fast.
If we have that kind of draft, men, how do you now feel about going to war with Iran or Venezuela or wherever John Bolton definitely isn’t going but still wants to conquer? This is my only point. Legally everyone gets a vote and is entitled to representation. Morally and socially, your opinion is only worth what you personally have at stake.
Could be some folks are playing stealthy, but it seems the like the conservative/centrist men in this thread are batting 0% for being willing to back up their words with action. Like… I was reserve component, combat support, I would be very easily defeated in a dick-measuring service contest. But nobody’s even trying.
First of all, might I mention that I may have some pretty serious non-serious insults to level at you, mr double i andy double double i, in the pit when I get a chance for “baiting” me into breaking my hiatus.
I started reading this thread without having a strong opinion. I thought you made some good arguments, but so did some of your opponents in the thread. I will say that if I thought that your idea would be in any way effective, then I could easily go along with it, but I see, more than the moral or ethical or “slippery slope” arguments leveled, is that it would not result in the goals that you desire.
Lets take a look first at a Mr. Edward Gallagher. Now, personally, I consider him to be a gutless coward, along with being a piece of shit. Only a gutless coward shoots at unarmed civilians and murders disarmed and injured prisoners of war. However, he meets your criteria as someone who would not be shamed as a gutless coward for advocating for war. I don’t know him, so it is only speculation, but I would guess that he would advocate for wars, and he’d sign up to go fight them. However, I would consider his opinion to be worth even less than the most chicken of the hawks you could find in civilian life.
He is not isolated in this. I met a number of vets while I was in school, there on the GI bill. Most were pretty cool people, but they were mostly support logistics. A few seemed to have seen combat, but didn’t much like to talk about it. The most assholish of them were the ones that looked back on their time in combat with fondness and nostalgia, telling stories of mowing down people while high on cocaine. They would also not be shamable as gutless cowards under your conditions, but I would still find their opinion to be only worthwhile as to get a measure of what to move away from.
It’s not about courage and bravery. If you are in the US military, then going to war is not really that high a risk to your life. The vast majority of people who went off to war came back physically undamaged. Psychologically, OTOH, is a different matter. I am of the strong opinion, that being in combat, where you are trying to kill people who are trying to kill you, will only not cuase great psychological harm if you are already broken.
Now, to a large extent, I do hold the opinion that those who have or are serving to have a bit more informed of an opinion than those who have not served, and those higher than those who will not serve, but the differences I put on those weights are small, a few percent at most.
There are some wars and military actions that I am in favor of. If SEAL Team 6 had come to my door and asked if I wanted to go on the Bin Laden raid, I would have gone along and only been concerned that I would get in the way, but I wouldn’t have signed up for the military just because I approved of that raid.
You have described wars of “choice”, but you are slightly misnomering them. They are wars for profit. We are sending in troops to not protect ourselves or allies from belligerent neighbors, but to protect commerce and trade, protecting oil pipelines and tankers. I am not entirely against this, but having a few ships patrolling and discouraging pirates is a bit shy of invading a sovereign country because they are accused of popping some holes in some oil pipelines.
Now, this goes beyond social shaming, and would be more of a policy matter, but I would be for the idea that if we are at war, defined by having troops or materiel on or engaged with hostile forces on non-allied land, then we should go to a war tax. Call it the tax rates we had during or immediately after WWII, adjusted for inflation.
So, I would say that, before advocating for war, are you willing to pay for that war? You can sign up to fight, sure, that’s one way of paying for it, but if you are sitting home on your couch, watching Fox News’s coverage of bombs dropping on people half a world away, then you should have some level of sacrifice as well, and fiscal is as good as any.
I am not sure what social shaming term I would use to describe someone who is willing to ask their country to pay for the enormous costs associated with going to war, but is not willing to pay them selves is, but we can just go with general insults to their character and upbringing until we think of a specific term. Cheaphawk, misermonger, piece of shit?
As to that, while it Is certainly fun to insult those who lead our country to ruin, I do have to address my concerns on the efficacy of aht. As mentioned, when people feel insulted, they dig in. Not saying that I would have quit smoking earlier had I not been “shamed” about it, but I certainly wasn’t going to quit smoking for the purpose of giving someone who had insulted me the satisfaction of knowing that insulting me had worked.
We can call 'em as we see 'em. We can give them whatever insultignames we want to, and we can get some enjoyment or catharsis out of doing so. It is even possible that others will also make sure that these insults make it back to the ears of those deserving of them. And they may even play some small role in changing a few minds here and there about their position towards unnecessary wars waged for profit.
If you feel that personally remarking to those who advocate for war without being willing to pay for it, whether in their own service or at elast in a greater fiscal contribution that they lack in character and in courage, then you are not wrong to do so, however, your idea of a campaign of shaming is, while well intentioned and not without some merit in thinking on what the goals of such a campaign would be and more effective way of achieving those goals, is IMHO, not practical or effective.
… and it seems like we’ve found another non-service-person defending their right to send other people to war.
Seriously, the ratio on this thread is 0% of people willing to back up their words with actions. It’s like bugs to a bug zapper. What’s going on here?
If that’s what you got out of my fairly long and thought out post, then I don’t know what to tell you. That is the complete opposite of what I actually did say.
This is not really about the power of insults, or insults changing minds… it’s about an attempt to change (even if in a small way) a society and a culture that I believe sees war as a little thing – no big deal, and no big problem. It sees war as fundamentally easy. War should be seen as incredibly hard – for society as a whole, not just those who take part in it. It should not be an easy or flippant decision, and I think too many Americans see it that way.
I agree that our culture is to easy to go to war. The average american probably couldn’t list half the countries that we are currently engaged in hostilities. I see that to be the problem more than warmongers is the apathy.
Would you put any insult or shame to someone who doesn’t support a war, but also isn’t against a war, because they haven’t bothered to inform themselves about the war? If your goal is to prevent unnecessary wars, those are the ones that need to be reached, more than the ones who advocate for wars. If you would shame them, how would you do so, and do you think that it would be effective?
That’s why I like my idea of a war tax. Then your average american, no how apathetic about it, is still being impacted, and may find themselves with an encouragement to learn about the wars that they are paying these taxes to support.
I’m not sure, but I’d certainly welcome suggestions on other ways to address this problem.
Yano, that’s not a half crazy suggestion. People may be all gung-ho about sending the military to go ‘kick some ass! Fuck yah!’ half a world away (like it’s a football game), long as it doesn’t require any personal sacrifice. However, I think a mandatory tax that would require all civilians to pay for the war they might callously support would end up causing people to be less eager to advocate for it.
Also, I’m a fan of the idea that every able man and woman should be required to serve 2-4 years in some form, be it military, or a required civil/c service gig like national infrastructure projects, habitat for humanity, and various other community projects. I can only see that as being a real positive to society and economy.
I’d gladly endorse the second of these ideas; I’m not convinced about the first but I’d consider it.
The first does not preclude being called out as a coward. It just puts an additional financial price on it.