NationStates Jolt Archive

Around this forum I've recently seen this sort of thing:
http://webpages.charter.net/micah/sticker.gif
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2005_06_12_patriotboy_archive.html#111908108275568907
http://www.neonbubble.com/a/operation-yellow-elephant

The idea that to support the war, one should enlist to fight it is, on the surface, perfectly sound. But consider this article and think again.

Despicable hypocrites? (by Eve Garrard)

Chris Bertram has been taking issue with Christopher Hitchens' remarks about whether those who don't fight themselves, and don't have children fighting, have a right to a view on whether the Iraq war - or any other, presumably - is justified. He (Chris Bertram) raises the very interesting question of just what the moral relation is between recommending a dangerous, perhaps lethal, course of action, and being prepared to take on (some of) the risks in one's own person.

He agrees with Hitchens that the question of whether the war was actually justified isn't affected by the military involvement or otherwise of the person making the judgement. But he thinks that this involvement affects the moral status of the judgers themselves. He says:

It is perfectly reasonable to ask of someone who advocates a policy that involves people in significant personal sacrifice whether they would be willing to incur or risk that sacrifice themselves.

And the point of asking the question, in his view, is that those who aren't so willing, who endorse the dangerous policy but wouldn't risk the sacrifice for themselves or their children, are 'despicable hypocrite[s] whose prattlings do not deserve the attention of reasonable people'.

Now it is right, I think, to suggest that there is something morally doubtful about being prepared to support sacrificial policies while carefully protecting oneself and those one loves from making any of the sacrifices involved, though whether it's actually hypocrisy, rather than some other vice, needs further consideration. But the trouble with this argument is that it's far too strong: if this is hypocrisy, then there's an awful lot of hypocrisy about the place, and an emphasis on its presence doesn't favour the doveish side of the debate about the Iraq war.

For we can equally ask of those who were and remain against the war whether they were themselves, in their own or their children's persons, prepared to incur the consequences attendant on that war not having been waged.

That too was a sacrificial policy. How many of those hostile to the US and UK intervention, without which Saddam would still be in power and his torture chambers still open for business, would be prepared to put their own child at risk of entering one of those chambers, to be hideously raped or tormented or murdered - or have been willing to offer up themselves? I don't believe that a single one of those who so vociferously complain about the hypocrisy of armchair warrior hawks would be prepared to risk their children or themselves at the hands of Saddam's torturers.

Are they also despicable hypocrites whose prattlings do not deserve the attention of reasonable people? Myself I don't think so: I'm prepared to listen to them and argue with them as serious antagonists in one of the most important political debates of our times. It's not to their discredit that they want their children to be protected from the horrors of the world; though what might be to their discredit is that they don't want other people's children to be protected in the same way. How ready, come to that, would your average comfortably-off critic of the war be to volunteer himself or herself for some of the more dangerous, or less healthy, non-wartime occupations which we all depend upon?

Much of the commentariat does get off lightly from life's troubles, and this is a serious moral issue; but it can't be hijacked for use by those opposed to the Iraq war to award themselves brownie points for open-eyed moral integrity. If it's hypocrisy to prefer, and indeed ensure, that others, rather than one's own loved children, take the risks of the policies one endorses, then there's going to be a lot of hypocrisy in the ranks of those who preferred Saddam to be left in power, torturing and murdering many many thousands, while the West, including its commentariat, remained safely at home. (Eve Garrard)
http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2005/07/despicable_hypo.html
http://normblog.typepad.com/

I agree that it is an admirable thing for those supporters of the Iraq war to enlist to help fight it. But I don't think that declining to enlist makes one a hypocrite for supporting it. Such accusations are an obstacle to proper debate.

I have relatives in the war...if i were old enough i suppose i would be out there to....so can i have a veiw on it?

I have relatives in the war...if i were old enough i suppose i would be out there to....so can i have a veiw on it?
Everyone who is willing to inform themselves on the facts is entitled to a view on it.

I didnt agree with going in to Iraq but the argument that you cant be for the war if you dont enlist sounds pretty stupid to me.

Everyone who is willing to inform themselves on the facts is entitled to a view on it.

oh...ok

Around this forum I've recently seen this sort of thing:
http://webpages.charter.net/micah/sticker.gif
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/2005_06_12_patriotboy_archive.html#111908108275568907
http://www.neonbubble.com/a/operation-yellow-elephant

The idea that to support the war, one should enlist to fight it is, on the surface, perfectly sound. But consider this article and think again.


http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2005/07/despicable_hypo.html
http://normblog.typepad.com/

I agree that it is an admirable thing for those supporters of the Iraq war to enlist to help fight it. But I don't think that declining to enlist makes one a hypocrite for supporting it. Such accusations are an obstacle to proper debate.

Such accusations also do not take into consideration what the troops fighting want. They do not want someone fighting along side of them who does not have the same dedication to thier cause or mission that they have. One would be very hard pressed to find a single soldier that blamed anyone for not joining them. Twisting someones arm, with either guilt or a draft does not provide them a battlefield asset, but a liability which more often than not distracts in any number of ways from their goals.

I also have relatives in this war.

If I could, I would've enlisted but I can't unfortunately. Therefor, I'm doing the next best thing by supporting those that can fight.

Come home safely Boys and Girls. Thank you for all that you are doing for our country.

Two points:

#1. Not everyone who supports the war is qualified, if they're too young, too old, or have some kind of disability.

#2. If a person views the war in Iraq as righteous, then yes, if they don't join, they're a hypocrite. But joining the military does not just cause you to go to war in Iraq, but also to be stuck in the military even after the war is over. People may support the war, but believe that their individual contribution is not worth being stuck in the military. That's not hypocrasy, because what they do, as individuals, would accomplish very little.

And yes, it hinders proper debate.

I also have relatives in this war.

If I could, I would've enlisted but I can't unfortunately. Therefor, I'm doing the next best thing by supporting those that can fight.

Come home safely Boys and Girls. Thank you for all that you are doing for our country.

I can tell you from experience that having loud and vocal support at home is more valuable to the soldiers than any material support the government can supply. It is the thing that provides the ability to push on when quitting becomes the most attractive option. Support at home has saved more lives in combat than ballistic kevlar ever could. That is a fact.

Liverbreath']I can tell you from experience that having loud and vocal support at home is more valuable to the soldiers than any material support the government can supply. It is the thing that provides the ability to push on when quitting becomes the most attractive option. Support at home has saved more lives in combat than ballistic kevlar ever could. That is a fact.

I agree totally my friend. Even the military commander (either CentCom or the person incharge of Coalition forces) stated that very same.

I also have relatives in this war.

If I could, I would've enlisted but I can't unfortunately. Therefor, I'm doing the next best thing by supporting those that can fight.

Come home safely Boys and Girls. Thank you for all that you are doing for our country.

You are a liar and all who were on the thread where you kept changing reasons knows it.

You are a liar and all who were on the thread where you kept changing reasons knows it.

*puts on tin foil hat*

What the hell are you babbling about? Nothing apparently.

*puts on tin foil hat*

What the hell are you babbling about? Nothing apparently.
I believe he is referring to another thread in which you gave a supposed reason that you could not enlist. I cannot appear to find the thread, though, as I can only vaguely remember it and do not remember the title.

I believe he is referring to another thread in which you gave a supposed reason that you could not enlist. I cannot appear to find the thread, though, as I can only vaguely remember it and do not remember the title.

I remember that thread. Come to find out I had out of date information. I apologized and admitted I was wrong on that info. Everyone makes mistakes.

As for me not serving, I still can't serve anyway :(

I believe he is referring to another thread in which you gave a supposed reason that you could not enlist. I cannot appear to find the thread, though, as I can only vaguely remember it and do not remember the title.

It was something along the lines of his father being in combat so he couldn't go in, which was wrong. Then he said that it would take a lot of paperwork for him to enter actual combat, and he wanted to "save trees". Then he got around to saying that he had a "medical condition".

It was something along the lines of his father being in combat so he couldn't go in, which was wrong. Then he said that it would take a lot of paperwork for him to enter actual combat, and he wanted to "save trees". Then he got around to saying that he had a "medical condition".

I already stated that I had out of date information. My information was 22 years old. I'm sorry for not keeping up with current military regulations.

And yes, I can't join because of a medical condition and I have the paperwork to prove it to. But your not going to see it because it isn't your business.

I already stated that I had out of date information. My information was 22 years old. I'm sorry for not keeping up with current military regulations.

And yes, I can't join because of a medical condition and I have the paperwork to prove it to. But your not going to see it because it isn't your business.

But what about all the trees that died to make that paperwork!? I thought you were all about saving trees!

Liverbreath']I can tell you from experience that having loud and vocal support at home is more valuable to the soldiers than any material support the government can supply.
It's easy to say that when you are in an army that gives you material support. Not saying that vocal support is unimportant, but military technology is surely important to success in a war, isn't it?

It's easy to say that when you are in an army that gives you material support. Not saying that vocal support is unimportant, but military technology is surely important to success in a war, isn't it?

However, if you have people back home stating bring the troops home and other things, it grates on the troops thus their resolve gets weakened. The troops confidence is weakened as well. When that happens, they don't fight as effectively as they can. Troop morale is also hurt by such statements. Not good.

But what about all the trees that died to make that paperwork!? I thought you were all about saving trees!
In the other thread you (Corneliu) said you couldn't enlist because your father was already enlisted and you were his only son or something and now it's a medical condition? Then when that was proven to be false, you couldn't admit you were lying; you just left for a couple days. At least try to be consistent with your lying. Lemme try to find the original...

here's where most of the action was (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=427134&page=2&pp=15&highlight=operation+yellow+elephant)


I know full well what the military regs have to say on this issue. I am my father's only son. I can't legally serve in combat. End of story.
And now you can't enlist because of a medical condition?

A link from a post on that thread to another thread proving you're lying:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9103154&postcount=266
Now are you going to admit your fault or just leave for a few days like last time?

However, if you have people back home stating bring the troops home and other things, it grates on the troops thus their resolve gets weakened. The troops confidence is weakened as well. When that happens, they don't fight as effectively as they can. Troop morale is also hurt by such statements. Not good.
I'm not disputing this at all. I'm disputing the assertion that it is far more important than having decent military equipment.

I'm not disputing this at all. I'm disputing the assertion that it is far more important than having decent military equipment.

No support back home=no victory overseas. Example of that is Vietnam.

No support back home=no victory overseas. Example of that is Vietnam.
I'm still waiting for a reply and an admition to fault, Corneliu.

I'm still waiting for a reply and an admition to fault, Corneliu.

On what?

On what?
scroll up a few posts

btw, how does one link to a specific post?

No support back home=no victory overseas. Example of that is Vietnam.
how many times must I say: I agree that domestic support is important!

scroll up a few posts

And how many times have I already stated that the regs I was stating was TWENTY-TWO YEARS OUT OF DATE!

Besides that, I still can't enlist. :(

how many times must I say: I agree that domestic support is important!

Sorry! Its rare we agree :)

And how many times have I already stated that the regs I was stating was TWENTY-TWO YEARS OUT OF DATE!

Besides that, I still can't enlist. :(
no need to yell, but you could be more clear on what you're talking about.

no need to yell, but you could be more clear on what you're talking about.

How can I be anymore clearer by stating that I was using out dated information and have already apologized for it. I won't apologize for it again. Dot period, end of discussion.

How can I be anymore clearer by stating that I was using out dated information and have already apologized for it. I won't apologize for it again. Dot period, end of discussion.
where did you apologize? But I agree with you for once. I'm getting tired of trying to get you to admit fault and only being fed excuses of "out-of-date info".

what's a "dot period"? :confused: :confused:

where did you apologize? But I agree with you for once. I'm getting tired of trying to get you to admit fault and only being fed excuses of "out-of-date info".

Even though what you call an excuse is the actual truth?

what's a "dot period"? :confused: :confused:

Dot, period, end of discussion. Its an expression.

isnt that attitude really stupid? its like saying i cant have an opinion of the holocaust because ive never killed any Jews....

Even though what you call an excuse is the actual truth?
I thought this was where the "dot period" was.

Dot, period, end of discussion. Its an expression.
oh, you meant "dot, period"...with a comma. :rolleyes:

I find it's as valid a position as those who assume all those who oppose the war, are bleeding heart hippies.

Me and several others who have previously opposed the actions taken in Iraq; were labled, as such, as "Hippies" and degraded because we "don't support the troops".

We, of course found such accusations humorous; considering we were all veterans; and some of us were still active military personnel.

I will automatically question the intents of anyone who would assume to support military action; but themselves are unwilling to take a active part in the military actions through service.

If you're not willing to fight along side me; I certainly would not want you there; I would also not want you claiming to "support" my actions in combat from your armchair thousands of miles away, reaping off the benefits of my blood.

I'd say; all in all, it's less some hypocriticality; and more a idea of self-conceit and rank arrogance that people unwilling to take part in such actions; are more than willing to throw others blood away for their ideals.

isnt that attitude really stupid? its like saying i cant have an opinion of the holocaust because ive never killed any Jews....
Perhaps. Let's look at this from a 1940s Nazi perspective:

"What, you you agree that Der Jews must be exterminated, but you're too lazy to enlist to do it yourself? Coward, sieg heil!"

Oh man, I'm finding this difficult to figure out. If we say the the current war is against the insurgents, than say that the Holocaust was a war against the Jews. Then if you were in favour of the holocaust you might be a hypocrite for not helping the Nazis carry it out. If you were against it, would you be a hypocrite for not sabotaging the Operation?

It's easy to say that when you are in an army that gives you material support. Not saying that vocal support is unimportant, but military technology is surely important to success in a war, isn't it?

You could start a whole new thread on the merits of technology Swimmingpool, they are too numerous to count. The truth is however, that in most wars, the latest and greatest technologies are either countered or the combatants adapt in a manner to negate it's desired effect. Technology is at best a temporary advantage. War always boils down to the individual soldier on the battlefield, and by the time that a man is worn down to the point of shutting down all the technology in the world has evaded him and all that is left is him, a weapon and an enemy. A man that knows his people are behind him, and knows what he is fighting for is right will always push far beyond what the body is capable of, without fear of what his fate may be, and without hesitation which is fatal. A man who knows that his people are against him and what he does will question everything and find excuses to quit before he begins.
With all things added up the support from his own people weigh more heavily in success, than all the technology ever produced, simply because without the spirit of the individual solider the mission could never go forward.

Liverbreath']War always boils down to the individual soldier on the battlefield.
No, it doesn't. soldiers are not individuals - they work in groups.

No, it doesn't. soldiers are not individuals - they work in groups.

If I should forget, remind me not to take your posts seriously in the future. My mistake.

isnt that attitude really stupid? its like saying i cant have an opinion of the holocaust because ive never killed any Jews....or to use a current topic.
"you can't support Same Sex marriage if you are not Homosexual."

this yellow elephant thing is stupid and the last tread to mention this was locked by the mods.

Liverbreath']If I should forget, remind me not to take your posts seriously in the future. My mistake.
You're the one who painted a ridiculous romanticised picture of the "lone soldier" in a serious political thread.

However, if you have people back home stating bring the troops home and other things, it grates on the troops thus their resolve gets weakened. The troops confidence is weakened as well. When that happens, they don't fight as effectively as they can. Troop morale is also hurt by such statements. Not good.
And I am sure that the "troop morale" is heightened by stay at homes, such as yourself, declaring that the war in Iraq has been "bloodless"?

However, if you have people back home stating bring the troops home and other things, it grates on the troops thus their resolve gets weakened. The troops confidence is weakened as well. When that happens, they don't fight as effectively as they can. Troop morale is also hurt by such statements. Not good. Oh please. My brother was in Kuwait, and if any of us back home stopped criticizing the war, he'd think we went off the deep end. It hardly grates on his nerves that we don't support the war. It grates on his nerves that he serves with a bunch of brainwashed idiots.

Are you still beating this same stupid drum? How about this swimmy, those countries that don't contribute to mantaining peace and freedom in the world shouldn't think they have any say in it?

Btw, I am a veteren. How are you going to try and shout me down about the war?

Perhaps. Let's look at this from a 1940s Nazi perspective:

"What, you you agree that Der Jews must be exterminated, but you're too lazy to enlist to do it yourself? Coward, sieg heil!"

Did that stupid ass statement just come out of your mouth? Perhaps we need to look at it from a 1910's Irish perspective:

"What's that Shamus? Ya don't like the British occupation but yer too cowardly will to join the IRA? Lazy English dog!"

Oh please. My brother was in Kuwait, and if any of us back home stopped criticizing the war, he'd think we went off the deep end. It hardly grates on his nerves that we don't support the war. It grates on his nerves that he serves with a bunch of brainwashed idiots.

Oh please, my father is currently in Iraq. Don't give me that crap. I don't care if people protest the war. However, word of it gets back to the troops. It really does hurt troop moral. Don't believe me? Look at Vietnam. Also ask the Coalition Commander in Iraq if it hurts troop morale. The anti-war crowd caused us to lose Vietnam! Granted, I fault LBJ more than the Anti-War crowd because he micromanaged it but that's a different debate.

As for him serving with people he doesn't like, tell him to put in for a transfer. Its that easy.

No, it doesn't. soldiers are not individuals - they work in groups.
If the individual shirks, goldbricks, and doesn't do his job to the best of his ability, the whole unit suffers. Morale has a major influence on how a Soldier performs. Technology is only a minor, temporary contributing factor, not an overwhelming advantage. Technologically superior armies have lost before against less-well equipped, but better motivated armies in the past, present, and in the future. Tech advantages can be overcome by a determined enemy (Vietnam, Algeria, Arab-Israeli war of 1967 and 1973) whose troops believe in what they are doing and have the training and discipline to do it.
We have historical evidence of what happens when the Soldiers don't believe their nation supports them-all the way back t the fall of rome, and forward to the American period of Vietnam and the post-Vietnam malaise, when crime and drug-addiction ran rampant through the services and officers on some posts would not inspect their men in-barracks without armed escort (the Carter years).