It’s possible to have an ethical stance against killing and still recognize, as gigi does, that there might be circumstances that make it necessary.
Our army went into Iraq in an unjustified act of aggression. That’s on Congress and GW Bush. However, the people in the army didn’t join for that purpose. Some joined for selfish reasons, some because they thought it would be an adventure, some to defend the US but I don’t think many, if any, joined for the purpose of needlessly invading another nation.
However, once they had joined they must follow the lawful orders of those in command. I don’t think you would want it any other way because those other ways lead to a breakdown of discipline which is exactly what you don’t want in an armed force.
Don’t blame the victims, which in this case are those in our military and the ordinary Iraqis.
That might have been said once, and credibly, about the abolition of slavery. True, murder cannot be entirely supprossed even in theory. But war might some day be ended. Look at the European Union: Given Europe’s history, who would have thought in 1945 that Europe would ever reach a state of affairs where all its countries are in such common accord and so politically associated and so economically interdependent that war between them has become a ludicrously improbable idea? The world as a whole might yet do the same.
I hope you’re right, BG. But we’re not there yet. And because of that, there are certain unpleasant realities we must face and deal with rather than try to find intellectual comfort in unrealistic absolutes.
Sevastopol has never interested me enough for me to know where he usually is coming from. That said, he was responding to a post with two separate propositions:
1: certain unpleasant realities, and
2: unrealistic absolutes
The phrasing of his post didn’t make clear which porposition is referred to by the statement: And one of those is that the less US troops there are, the better a place the world will be.
Based on the above post, (he?) is British. That explains things somewhat, as the American military is not high on the list of favorites for the european left.
The naive world view is always good for a chuckle though.
Why not a comfortable medium? Both the U.S.'s armed prescence abroad and the results of a lack of that presence are bad. I may be a European leftie, but I think “the lesser of two evils” is a reasonable characterisation. But hey, feel free to dismiss it out of hand.
You can’t have it both ways, RV. One of the main functions of the U.S. military for the past thirty years or so is to provide a stablizing influence to the world economy. That stability has improved the living standard of millions, both in and out of the United States.
Can you share with me why you think that the United States having troops abroad is bad? They certainly came in handy to hold back the Soviet Union from gobbling up western europe for example.
But I can have it both ways. Why can I not? U.S. troops abroad - bad. Situation without U.S. troops - bad. It’s like a heart attack versus a migraine; just because the former is bad doesn’t mean the latter is especially good.
What, in WWII?
But sure, in general i’d say U.S. troops abroad also has good effects. In terms of bad effects, then; first off, it means killing. Again, not as much as without them there, but there is killing nonetheless. It also can be used by people to support the myth of the U.S. being an evil imperial power, a bit of PR that seems especially important for you (and, hey, us!) recently. A third one; it wastes your troops. Should an occasion arrive where troops are really needed (like currently in Iraq, depending on one’s point of view) having troops spread out all over the place means that often they’re going to get few breaks, which is pretty much not good for anyone in the situation. And then there’s the friendly fire incidents, accidents, plus actual criminal behaviour exhibited by a few that are pretty much inevitable at this point.
If this is true, does she has no recourse? Or, is it true because Lynch was a different grade than Johnson or had served for more time?
If they were the same grade and served for the same amount of time, what possible basis could the US military have for the disparity in pensions?
And, is this not a big story because the cute white girl is getting the 80%? If the tables were turned, I suspect the variation on MSWG syndrome would be in play and there would be huge media attention paid and tremendous outrage that Johnson was getting 80% and Lynch was getting only 30%.
And extremely well-spoken and confident on-camera for a kid from the wilds of West Virginia. I’ve been looking forward to her getting her own show. Quoting her, on the topic of this thread, before Congress on April 24th, “The bottom line is the American people are capable of determining their own ideas of heroes, and they don’t need to be told elaborate tales.”
I really, truly, like that young woman. When she used her star power to get “Extreme Makeover” to make a house for a buddy who was KIA in the same action I was impressed and, through her Congressional testimony, I saw this was a woman of honor who is taking control of her story. By her own admission she did not perform heroically during the fight, but she is acting like a hero now.
