Oh, yeah, I also wanted to agree that Kauzlarich is an asshole.
Maybe I’m getting cranky in my old(er) age, but it seems that, every day, I find myself wishing that I believed in a hell–the more fiery and brimstoney, the better–to which people like him could be summarily dispatched. Like, right now. En masse.
Ugh!
The Rupture
I’ve spent many hours, collectively, in barracks, berthing compartments, American Legion & VFW bars, etc. shooting the shit with active duty and vets, and the "why did you enlist?’ topic often comes up. Not once have I ever heard “I really admired those hippies and thought I’d enlist and put up with all this bullshit so they could be free to do their thing.”
Of course, I’m a relic from when soldiers, sailors and Marines were just guys who liked to fight and fuck and get drunk whenever they could. This twenty-first century “mystic and honorable warrior for rights of the free” crap kind of baffles me.
I think the voters need to come in for some criticism also. The “Tillman Show” was known about before the last presidential election as, I believe, was the true Lynch story. And the stories of the exaggerations with respect to Saddam and weapons programs.
A majority of voters went ahead anyway and reinstalled the same gang of bunco artists as our national leaders.
It’s called Missing White Woman Syndrome.
It’s the flip-side of my point. I’m an anti-military twit and I wouldn’t respect soldiers in any case. So neither side’s stance will change much.
Once again, Tom Tomorrow says it much better than I could.
Why do you feel that way?
I remember back when Ollie North wrote his book and it was advertised with wording something along the lines of “Now he can finally tell the truth!”
I think it was Bobcat Goldthwait who asked, “As opposed to, um, when he was under oath?”
Because of the whole killing other humans aspect of it. I’m sure there are circumstances (such as self-defense in a direct attack) where it’s justified, but I can’t imagine taking a job with that as one of the goals. It’s just not honorable to me.
The principle reason for the US armed forces is sold as national defense which falls under you exception. The problem is that once you raise you hand and take that oath, you can easily be at the beck and call of any faux tough-guy who happens to be installed in office by the Supreme Court.
Respectfully, we’ll have to agree to disagree on this.
I guess so. However, to quote gigi, “I’m sure there are circumstances (such as self-defense in a direct attack) where it’s justified” and when those circumstances arise you really need someone ready to meet them.
**"Oh, it's Tommy this and Tommy that
And throw him out, the brute.
But it's 'Thank you, Mr. Atkins.'
When the guns begin to shoot."**
This is a naive sentiment. The U.S. military is directly responsible for the personal freedom of millions of people in the world today. Its mere existance has deterred war. It is one of the reasons that the United States has a stable economy and its citizens have not had to suffer under arms in almost 200 years.
The world is a complicated place full of people who would love to act in a way that would not be in the best interest of the people of the United States. The power of the U.S. military stands in their way.
Loudly proclaiming sweeping moral absolutes such as yours above shows either ignorance of this fact or the unwillingness to accept it.
So, you are saying that Americans shouldn’t have an ethical stance against killing?
No, I’m not.
Our ethical stance against killing is evidenced by our laws prohibiting murder. If military members commit such crimes, they are subject to penalties that are harsher than the civilian world in many cases. The military is governed by a code of conduct and specific rules of engagement.
Either you knew that and are just attempting to be combative or you are taking a stand without knowing the relevant facts.
gigi says she has a problem with the whole killing thing. You said that was naive. So is it naive for Americans to be anti killing or not?
That doesn’t change the fact that an army in the field has, as one of its main goals, the killing of other humans. Pacifists and others have issues with taking the lives of other humans - regardless of what rules the army follows.
Is it naive for people to want to live in a world where people don’t kill other people?
It’s naive for anyone to disrespect soldiers in general “because of the whole killing thing.”
Absent some magic wand to harmlessly pacify aggressors, sometimes there is need of killing. It would be awfully nice if there wasn’t, but wishing doesn’t make it so.
Naive, absolutely. Seriously, what an embarrassing opinion to have vocalized.
It’s one thing to actively work for a world that has no need for soldiers – it’s another thing to express contempt while the need still exists. And if you’re not actively working for peace, and disrespect the occupation of “soldier,” you’re in a special class of damned fool.
It’s more of a fantasy. It is completely unattainable and therefore shouldn’t be an opinion voiced in serious discourse. To do so makes one appear extremely naive and unrealistic.