NationStates Jolt Archive

So in checking my email, I found that I had received yet another forward of how such and such place does not "support" the troops because they refused to donate toys to children of servicemen (and women) and how this means we should launch a nationwide boycott.

This got me to thinking, why must we automatically honor military personnel above and beyond being respectful to anyone else?

I can hear the knees jerking already, so please read on before attempting to heat my cold Nagano house with your flames.

Yes, I know that people in the military have died for the freedoms I enjoyed while home (and technically in Japan, though not quite that way). However, I am also aware that most military people are NOT the ground pounders, sailors, or flyboys, but are support personnel. Indeed, one NSer related how his duties in the Navy consisted of playing PS2 while standing watch. The closest he got to combat was Mortal Kombat.

Most military people have never been in a fight, and have never fought for my freedom (Meaning any battle, let us not complicate things), and while you can say they enable the fighting men to fight; so do the civilians who build their weapons and equipment.

So why do we have to automatically (if I find out that the person I'm talking to is a real combat vet, that's different) honor above all others the troops; to the point that if a store or restaurant doesn't automatically offer freebies they are branded traitorous unpatriotic (and probably French) dogs and should be driving into bankruptcy by all right thinking Americans? After all, there have been some military people who have done evil things while in uniform as well.

I ask this especially in light of our all volunteer force. Because from civilians they come, and back to civilians they go, so why should I HAVE to treat them better than, say, the fireman?

I think this says it all....

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/34068

I think this says it all....

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/34068
That was... very sardonic. I love it! :)

I assume hes taking the piss?

if so very funny

if not very scary.....

Couldn't you spot the ultra high level of sarcasum?

Why?

Because its right and proper to show respect to those who have served.
It doesnt matter what they did, be it combat, or pump gas for the tanks...

They served, where I would not be willing to.
Therefore, even though I disdain what they fight for, its only fitting that one shows the proper respect to those who chose to serve the country they reside in.

This doesnt mean you should blow the next serviceman you see (or woman, I suppose) but if the opportunity should arise where you have the option of showing some respect, why not do it?

Look its simple...

As humans with a sense of honor, and respect, we often feel the need to show said respect to those who earn it.
If a person who has fought in a war, on behalf of thier country, isnt deserving of respect in your eyes, that pretty much makes you a douche.

It doesnt matter what they did when they served, not everyone is cut out to go into a firefight, I myself, would probably soil myself.


To answer you other question about wether a soldier deserves more respect than say, a fireman, the answer is that they both do.
Not one more than the other.

Would you take a bullet for Bush?
I sure as hell wouldnt, but others would..kudos to them.

I probably wouldnt rush into a burning building to check for survivors, either, but its a good thing there are people who will.

This got me to thinking, why must we automatically honor military personnel above and beyond being respectful to anyone else?

You don't, and you shouldn't if you don't want to, as they also fought for your freedom not to. Anyone who says you have to is insulting what they fought for in the first place.

Couldn't you spot the ultra high level of sarcasum?


Better question: Couldn't he spot that it was The Onion?

Why?


Look its simple...

As humans with a sense of honor, and respect, we often feel the need to show said respect to those who earn it.
If a person who has fought in a war, on behalf of thier country, isnt deserving of respect in your eyes, that pretty much makes you a douche.

It doesnt matter what they did when they served, not everyone is cut out to go into a firefight, I myself, would probably soil myself.


Hmm... both my grandfathers fought for Germany in WW II. I somehow don't think they deserve any respect for that whatsoever. Maybe I'm really a douche

Why?...would that entail the donation of toys to military dependants as a sign of support?

Better question: Couldn't he spot that it was The Onion?

There are some people out here who haven't heard of the onion:eek:

Hmm... both my grandfathers fought for Germany in WW II. I somehow don't think they deserve any respect for that whatsoever. Maybe I'm really a douche


Sure they do.

Why?

Just like any other soldier, they did what they believed was right at the time.
They were called on by thier country, and they answered.
Yes, thier leaders were doing some pretty damn awful things, but how could your grandfathers know that at the time?

Its like the Bushido code.

They were warriors, who served thier lords dutifully.
That alone deserves a modicum of respect.

...would that entail the donation of toys to military dependants as a sign of support?


Heh.

Im sorry, its late, could you re-phrase the question?

You don't, and you shouldn't if you don't want to, as they also fought for your freedom not to. Anyone who says you have to is insulting what they fought for in the first place.

That's an excellent point

Sure they do.

Why?

Just like any other soldier, they did what they believed was right at the time.
They were called on by thier country, and they answered.
Yes, thier leaders were doing some pretty damn awful things, but how could your grandfathers know that at the time?

Its like the Bushido code.

They were warriors, who served thier lords dutifully.
That alone deserves a modicum of respect.

Sorry, but no. I don't respect people who don't have the courage to do what they feel is right but rather choose the easy way of having others telling them what is right and what to do.
I would respect my grandfathers if they had acted out of their own conviction rather than feeding me excuses afterwards like "Those were the orders", "We didn't know any better", "We just did as we were told, you can't blame us"
As it is, I despise them from the bottom of my heart. The only good thing about both of them is that they learned from experience and took care that none of their sons ever got close to the military in any way.

Heh.

Im sorry, its late, could you re-phrase the question?Well, NERVUN started off by talking about getting an email from someone telling him to boycott a place that refused to donate toys to military dependents (or that would eventually find their way to them). As a former army brat, I fail to understand why US Military children would need a donation of toys so badly...

That alone deserves a modicum of respect.
The only reason you provided so far was that if we don't, we're douches.

Maybe this will help you understand her point.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,1772659,00.html

Ok, i'm going to go out on a limb here against the "they fought for your freedom so stfu" people: at no point has any serving personnel in the millitary ever fought a war who's outcome determines the continuing democratic and "free" nature of the United States. Infact there have only been three such wars in your nation's history: The War of Independence, The Civil War (not sure if this one counts though) and World War II. No-one who fought any of those wars is in any shape to fight in Iraq today. As it stands all the troops are doing is fighting for your oil/the establishment of a US favourable government in the middle east. Whether or not you can criticize them has absolutly nothing to do with what they're doing atm. They could choose to stop fighting the Islamist "Insurgents" on the other side of the planet from you and you wouldn't be able to criticize them any less because of it.

Why?

Because its right and proper to show respect to those who have served.
It doesnt matter what they did, be it combat, or pump gas for the tanks...
I show all respect that I would normally show to anyone else, being that they are people and therefore deserving of the same respect that I demand for myself, so I am not blowing them off or being disrespectful. Just mentioning before anyone says otherwise.

This doesnt mean you should blow the next serviceman you see (or woman, I suppose) but if the opportunity should arise where you have the option of showing some respect, why not do it?
Respect yes, as another person. For those than did more, I will show more respect (earned it I guess). My beef is the 'tude I am seeing now that somehow military personnel are different, seperate, and deserving of said blowjobs or other perks due to having served, regardless of what they actually did.

And in a country that is supposed to be judging a man based upon what he has done, not who he is, that's disturbing to me.

As humans with a sense of honor, and respect, we often feel the need to show said respect to those who earn it.
If a person who has fought in a war, on behalf of thier country, isnt deserving of respect in your eyes, that pretty much makes you a douche.
Granted, but how about those who have not fought? I had a roomie in college, wonderful guy. I really liked him. He was an ex-Marine and when he'd get drunk (which was often) he would tell the best stories about life in the Marines, including guard duty at Camp David where they would go and jerk off onto the president's doorknob (the 1st President Bush). But, he admited that he saw no combat, nothing. Why then he more deserving of respect than say, my other roomie, who didn't serve but instead has studied ChemE and is currently working as a state engineer as opposed to the ex-Marine who was a miner?

To answer you other question about wether a soldier deserves more respect than say, a fireman, the answer is that they both do.
Not one more than the other.
Then how about Joe Average?

Sorry, but no. I don't respect people who don't have the courage to do what they feel is right but rather choose the easy way of having others telling them what is right and what to do.
I would respect my grandfathers if they had acted out of their own conviction rather than feeding me excuses afterwards like "Those were the orders", "We didn't know any better", "We just did as we were told, you can't blame us"
As it is, I despise them from the bottom of my heart. The only good thing about both of them is that they learned from experience and took care that none of their sons ever got close to the military in any way.


For one thing, it seems like you have a personal grudge against these men that has little to do with thier military service, but that certainly isnt any of my business.
However, dont get me wrong, Im not imply that you should love what they did, or if they themselves participated in war crimes that they should be forgiven in your eyes.
The only thing Im saying is that they were brave enough to serve, when called.
They did a service for their country, when asked to, and that deserves a modicum of respect.
It doesnt make them good men, or honorable men, but ot means that you should be able to see them as you would anyone who does you a service.

Im not saying you should love them for what they have done, but what I am saying is that right or wrong, they stood for what they believed.
That deserves respect, even if its contrary to what you believe.

For one thing, it seems like you have a personal grudge against these men that has little to do with thier military service, but that certainly isnt any of my business.
However, dont get me wrong, Im not imply that you should love what they did, or if they themselves participated in war crimes that they should be forgiven in your eyes.
The only thing Im saying is that they were brave enough to serve, when called.
They did a service for their country, when asked to, and that deserves a modicum of respect.
It doesnt make them good men, or honorable men, but ot means that you should be able to see them as you would anyone who does you a service.

Im not saying you should love them for what they have done, but what I am saying is that right or wrong, they stood for what they believed.
That deserves respect, even if its contrary to what you believe."called"?

They did a service for their country, when asked to, and that deserves a modicum of respect.
What about those that were drafted?

It doesnt make them good men, or honorable men, but ot means that you should be able to see them as you would anyone who does you a service.
And so she does. As someone who takes the easy way out, by getting someone to tell you how to deal with life.

Maybe it just seems strange to you, but her view point isn't that unusual in Germany. Simply serving is never enough to make people respect you there (sometimes it's the opposite as you see).

The idea that you have to honour and support the troops, and wave the flag while doing it, is not universal.

Ok, i'm going to go out on a limb here against the "they fought for your freedom so stfu" people: at no point has any serving personnel in the millitary ever fought a war who's outcome determines the continuing democratic and "free" nature of the United States. Infact there have only been three such wars in your nation's history: The War of Independence, The Civil War (not sure if this one counts though) and World War II. No-one who fought any of those wars is in any shape to fight in Iraq today. As it stands all the troops are doing is fighting for your oil/the establishment of a US favourable government in the middle east. Whether or not you can criticize them has absolutly nothing to do with what they're doing atm. They could choose to stop fighting the Islamist "Insurgents" on the other side of the planet from you and you wouldn't be able to criticize them any less because of it.
There's that problem as well, but I am delberately leaving that part out because then we'll degenerate into yet another argument over the need of the Iraq war. :p

For argument's sake, I am assuming that all military action is needed to safeguard the United States (I know, I'm streching but there you are. ;) )

For argument's sake, I am assuming that all military action is needed to safeguard the United States (I know, I'm streching but there you are. ;) )

c.f. "Project for the New American Century"...

What about those that were drafted?[quote]

Point?


Maybe it just seems strange to you, but her view point isn't that unusual in Germany. Simply serving is never enough to make people respect you there (sometimes it's the opposite as you see).

The idea that you have to honour and support the troops, and wave the flag while doing it, is not universal.

Well Um, youre kinda preaching to the choir, actually.

I FIRMLY believe you can support the troops themselves, but not the cuase they fight for.

c.f. "Project for the New American Century"...
I know, I know. But a debate about this particular war is outside the scope of my orginal question, though related as during wartime there's a lot more 'support the troops or else' stuff floating around.

I ask this especially in light of our all volunteer force. Because from civilians they come, and back to civilians they go, so why should I HAVE to treat them better than, say, the fireman?

Uh, most people treat Firemen with rather large doses of respect. Though Cops tend to get a bad rap.

I FIRMLY believe you can support the troops themselves, but not the cuase they fight for.
You can believe all you want, but the troops and the cause are interlinked.

The troops are there to do something you disagree with. You can't say you support the Nazis but you don't like the Holocaust. The two belong together, and the same goes for the US Army right now and the occupation of Iraq.

But that's beside the point - the point is that I don't think that serving in a military should automatically give you respect.
I don't go as far as automatically disrespecting people in the military (my own fate is still uncertain regarding that matter)...but people have to earn my trust and respect first, and signing a contract to serve isn't enough.

I show all respect that I would normally show to anyone else, being that they are people and therefore deserving of the same respect that I demand for myself, so I am not blowing them off or being disrespectful. Just mentioning before anyone says otherwise.

Think of it like the Samurai.
Lets say youre a samurai, and you meet another one, in service of a different Lord, who intends to kill you.
Even though you fully intend to kill this guy, you let him draw his blade to meet him on an even and fair field of combat.

An act of respect.


Respect yes, as another person. For those than did more, I will show more respect (earned it I guess). My beef is the 'tude I am seeing now that somehow military personnel are different, seperate, and deserving of said blowjobs or other perks due to having served, regardless of what they actually did.

Well fortunatly, and this is important, you can have different amounts of respect for different people.
Most people would have more respect for a decorated war hero, than a guy who spent the war typing letters in HQ.
That doesnt mean that the latter guy isnt deserving of respect, it just means that the other guy deserves more.

And in a country that is supposed to be judging a man based upon what he has done, not who he is, that's disturbing to me.


Granted, but how about those who have not fought? I had a roomie in college, wonderful guy. I really liked him. He was an ex-Marine and when he'd get drunk (which was often) he would tell the best stories about life in the Marines, including guard duty at Camp David where they would go and jerk off onto the president's doorknob (the 1st President Bush). But, he admited that he saw no combat, nothing. Why then he more deserving of respect than say, my other roomie, who didn't serve but instead has studied ChemE and is currently working as a state engineer as opposed to the ex-Marine who was a miner?

Again, different levels of respect for different people, who did different jobs.


Then how about Joe Average?

Respect is generally earned, in the eyes of the beholder.

Well I had 3 great uncles killed in Russia, a grandfather who one an Iron Cross for bravery on the battlefield, a great grandfather (was dutch but emigrated to Germany, and fought in the Imperial Army in WW1, was one of the first volunteers). one of my ancestors fought in the battle of Dresden against the Swedish (30 years war).
I respect my sires, they all were in the army voluntarily before drafting started. This in no way means I support the Nazis, but support there Patriotic bravery to fight when there Fatherland was at war.
Also I respect people not for who they fought for but by there deeds, Rommel is one of my idols, so is Bismarck and Hindenburg, as is the Red Baron, but also Macarthur and Eisenhower, and Lawrence of Arabia. Deeds are what make men.

You can believe all you want, but the troops and the cause are interlinked.[quote]

I disagree.

[quote]The troops are there to do something you disagree with. You can't say you support the Nazis but you don't like the Holocaust. The two belong together, and the same goes for the US Army right now and the occupation of Iraq.

But that's beside the point - the point is that I don't think that serving in a military should automatically give you respect.
I don't go as far as automatically disrespecting people in the military (my own fate is still uncertain regarding that matter)...but people have to earn my trust and respect first, and signing a contract to serve isn't enough.

Hmmm..then I would say you have a limited view of the world.

I very much disagree with the cuase, current result, and probable outcome of the war in Iraq, but that does not mean I therefore shouldnt respect a persons sense of duty.
Just about every soldier in Iraq, is there becuase they chose to be, and even though I personally disagree with that choice, I still respect that choice to fight for what they believe is the right thing to do.

As an athiest, I disdain Jesus, but I can still muster up a modicum of respect for those who stand up for what they believe.
Its not mcuh different than war, really.

Think of it like the Samurai.
Lets say youre a samurai, and you meet another one, in service of a different Lord, who intends to kill you.
Even though you fully intend to kill this guy, you let him draw his blade to meet him on an even and fair field of combat.

An act of respect.
The samurai were not exactly respectable you know. For all the nice writtings about Bushido, the people of the time showed respect to the samurai because they had a tendancy to cut off your head if you didn't.

But, again, I am not suggesting that millitary personnel are NOT worthy of respect, unless they have done something wrong of course, but that I do not see why they should automatically be granted MORE respect than anyone else before I find out more about that person and their deeds while in the millitary.

Well fortunatly, and this is important, you can have different amounts of respect for different people.
Most people would have more respect for a decorated war hero, than a guy who spent the war typing letters in HQ.
That doesnt mean that the latter guy isnt deserving of respect, it just means that the other guy deserves more.
Again, I agree. I just ask why the guy typing letters is worthy of more honors than anyone else who has not served in the millitary.

Respect is generally earned, in the eyes of the beholder.
Which is my point, to gain more respect from me, you have to earn it. I will respect you for being human, and grant you that which I demand in return automatically, but higher honors from me need to be earned and I do not see why playing PlayStation2 on a ship for 8 hours (or however long a watch is) for a couple of years should earn you more respect from me.

Its like the Bushido code.

They were warriors, who served thier lords dutifully.
That alone deserves a modicum of respect.
We are not ants. Most of the western hemisphere today recognises that individuals are responsible for their own actions, even when they follow orders. Because following orders means you consciously choose to do what you're told.

I respect any person with the guts to fight when nessecary, and the brains to know when it's nessecary & when it's not.

I have no respect for army personel involved in the occupation of Iraq. The invasion was & is illegal. Anyone with the faculties to legally decide to fight & possibly kill & die for a cause, has enough brains to know they are commiting a crime.

I have respect for any autonomous individual. I have no respect for drones, and even less respect for people who try to defend their actions by saying "But that's what I was told to do". That argument is ONLY EVER valid if such individuals willingly & unquestioning claw their eyes out if told to.

Army recruits in most of the western hemisphere has to pass an IQ test. Oddly, people pass it by scoring high, not by scoring low. Not taking responsibility for the consequenses of surrendering one's will to someone else, is hypocrisy of the highest order, unless the person doing it suffers severe retardation. And soldiers don't.

I don't honour soldiers

your paid to go and risk your life

should we hold building workers in extremly high esteam as they have an even higher death rate then soldiers?

I agree with honouring those who fought for causes I agree with, those who fought after volenteering during a war and those who were conscripted.

not people who are peace time soldiers who then go to war especially not if the war is against my priciples.

my great grandfather was a soldier, he fought in world war one at the somme, gallipoli, dublin and palestine and on the northwest fronteir, iraq, afganistan, palastine again.

but despite all this and all the medels he won doing this the thing I respect him most for is being in a heavy rescue unit during world war 2

Just about every soldier in Iraq, is there becuase they chose to be, and even though I personally disagree with that choice, I still respect that choice to fight for what they believe is the right thing to do.
I think you might have a little skewed a view of why people join the military these days..."the right thing to do" and "serving ones country" is generally more at the bottom of the list. "They pay well" and "I can't get a proper education otherwise" is more like it.

As an athiest, I disdain Jesus, but I can still muster up a modicum of respect for those who stand up for what they believe.
Its not mcuh different than war, really.
If they stand up, maybe (that depends on the situation). But not simply because they are Christian.

We are not ants. Most of the western hemisphere today recognises that individuals are responsible for their own actions, even when they follow orders. Because following orders means you consciously choose to do what you're told.

I respect any person with the guts to fight when nessecary, and the brains to know when it's nessecary & when it's not.

I have no respect for army personel involved in the occupation of Iraq. The invasion was & is illegal. Anyone with the faculties to legally decide to fight & possibly kill & die for a cause, has enough brains to know they are commiting a crime.

:rolleyes: And now we see the wonderful bias you bring to this. Congratulations, you've probably lost the respect of every soldier in the world.

Are troops not the underqualified fools that go to incredibly hostile places where they could be killed very easily for very little money? If so they are not due respect, no body with an ounce of intellegence would take up a job like that. Neither their government, or their people (as proved by this) care about them, so whats the point in going off to get killed for a load of people who you dont actually know? the ones i respect are the ones who got drafted but then refused to go, or ran away, or the ones that go because they enjoy the proximity to death... because at least they have a reason (admittedly, a dark one). Of course not all troops are underqualified, there are those fighter pilots that cost millions to make too, well if those idiots had decided to put their intellegence into something useful rather than a war then id respect them too.

I think you might have a little skewed a view of why people join the military these days..."the right thing to do" and "serving ones country" is generally more at the bottom of the list. "They pay well" and "I can't get a proper education otherwise" is more like it.

Funny, I've yet to meet someone in my ROTC who is doing it because they can't get an education otherwise. Nor have I meet many people who think it will pay well. Hell I'm looking at 20k less than what my degree will fetch.

The samurai were not exactly respectable you know. For all the nice writtings about Bushido, the people of the time showed respect to the samurai because they had a tendancy to cut off your head if you didn't.

Ya, I know.
So were the European Knights, like the Templars etc...
I suppose Im speaking of the picturesque Samurai, and not excactly the more historically accurate ones.
Much like the average title-granted landowning knight, wasnt exactly all about chivalry.

But, again, I am not suggesting that millitary personnel are NOT worthy of respect, unless they have done something wrong of course, but that I do not see why they should automatically be granted MORE respect than anyone else before I find out more about that person and their deeds while in the millitary.


Again, I agree. I just ask why the guy typing letters is worthy of more honors than anyone else who has not served in the millitary.


Which is my point, to gain more respect from me, you have to earn it. I will respect you for being human, and grant you that which I demand in return automatically, but higher honors from me need to be earned and I do not see why playing PlayStation2 on a ship for 8 hours (or however long a watch is) for a couple of years should earn you more respect from me.


Allow me to clarify.
I believe military veterans deserve respect, but as to wether they deserve MORE, than the next person, depends greatly as to what the next person has done.

I very much disagree with the cuase, current result, and probable outcome of the war in Iraq, but that does not mean I therefore shouldnt respect a persons sense of duty.
Just about every soldier in Iraq, is there becuase they chose to be, and even though I personally disagree with that choice, I still respect that choice to fight for what they believe is the right thing to do.

As an athiest, I disdain Jesus, but I can still muster up a modicum of respect for those who stand up for what they believe.
Its not mcuh different than war, really.

Let's take this example to extremes then, shall we, to see if it holds.

Hitler - and most of his followers - believed that what they did would serve their country and that it was their duty to push it through. Do they deserve respect for it?

Milosevic did what he did out of a sense of duty for his country.

So did Arafat. And Fidel Castro. And Juan Peron.

The popes calling for the crusades believed it to be their duty towards Christianity...

I think I could go on with this list for ages, and it seems to me that things that were done out of a sense of duty to any authority or dogma hardly ever were for the benefit of mankind.
No, a person doing his/her assumed duty without consideration doesn't deserve more respect than any other ordinary lemming...

Are troops not the underqualified fools that go to incredibly hostile places where they could be killed very easily

Death rate for soldiers in Iraq is rather small actually. But anywho...

for very little money? If so they are not due respect, no body with an ounce of intellegence would take up a job like that. Neither their government, or their people (as proved by this) care about them, so whats the point in going off to get killed for a load of people who you dont actually know?

What, you need to know someone to care about their lives?

the ones i respect are the ones who got drafted but then refused to go, or ran away, or the ones that go because they enjoy the proximity to death... because at least they have a reason (admittedly, a dark one). Of course not all troops are underqualified, there are those fighter pilots that cost millions to make too, well if those idiots had decided to put their intellegence into something useful rather than a war then id respect them too.

I think the idiot is the person who can't see the uses of war. Modern armies don't come alive overnight. Perhaps you could explain how useless war is to the people of Nazi Occupied Europe. Or South Korea. Or all the South Vietnamize that wish the US hadn't pulled out? Etc...

Funny, I've yet to meet someone in my ROTC who is doing it because they can't get an education otherwise. Nor have I meet many people who think it will pay well. Hell I'm looking at 20k less than what my degree will fetch.
And I watched a piece on the Jim Lehrer Newshour about it, and a good number of the kids there said they'd go because that would make their tertiary education cheaper, and give them the money needed to start it.
You can go on about how great heroes they all are, but the fact of the matter is that neither they nor you would do it if there wasn't something you got out of it (even if it is simply a "W00T, I'm a soldier, respect me!"-factor).

:rolleyes: And now we see the wonderful bias you bring to this. Congratulations, you've probably lost the respect of every soldier in the world.
What bias? My belief in personal accountability?

Why would I lose the respect of soldiers for claiming they know what they're doing?

Not to mention that you know nothing about me. I am not in the army, but that could've easily been the case. Don't project your blind nationalism & refusal to think onto all the soldiers of the world. I wager a great many of them agree with what I wrote. I know quite a few who do.

Hey i NEVER said war was useless, i said youd be an idiot to go to one, i mean come on... your not going to be payed much and you might die, its a stupid choice. plus if you had read what i said you would have seen i admitted they were fighting for their population in that sense.

Ya, I know.
So were the European Knights, like the Templars etc...
I suppose Im speaking of the picturesque Samurai, and not excactly the more historically accurate ones.
Much like the average title-granted landowning knight, wasnt exactly all about chivalry.
Just making sure. Every since Dances With Samurai, er, I mean, The Last Samurai came out I have read much about how noble and honorable they were when in fact many were right bastards.

Allow me to clarify.
I believe military veterans deserve respect, but as to wether they deserve MORE, than the next person, depends greatly as to what the next person has done.
Then it sounds as if we are in agreement.

I ask this especially in light of our all volunteer force. Because from civilians they come, and back to civilians they go, so why should I HAVE to treat them better than, say, the fireman?
Because the firemen don't get the kind of mental torquing that the military troops get. And because firemen don't risk their lives for our freedom! :rolleyes:

Why Do We Have to Honor Military Personnel?
Because they have guns and believe they deserve it more than anyone else.

Because the firemen don't get the kind of mental torquing that the military troops get. And because firemen don't risk their lives for our freedom! :rolleyes:
*Beats you about the head and shoulders with a dead cod* :D

Because they have guns and believe they deserve it more than anyone else.
*LOL* Ok, I admit that I will always be very respectful to the person with a loaded weapon and even more so to the man inside an armed tank.

Let's take this example to extremes then, shall we, to see if it holds.

Hitler - and most of his followers - believed that what they did would serve their country and that it was their duty to push it through. Do they deserve respect for it?

Milosevic did what he did out of a sense of duty for his country.

So did Arafat. And Fidel Castro. And Juan Peron.

The popes calling for the crusades believed it to be their duty towards Christianity...

I think I could go on with this list for ages, and it seems to me that things that were done out of a sense of duty to any authority or dogma hardly ever were for the benefit of mankind.
No, a person doing his/her assumed duty without consideration doesn't deserve more respect than any other ordinary lemming...

Well those are some pretty damn extreme extremes, you have there.

Lets start with the worst..

Was anything Hitler did respectable?
No, not by his actions.
However, dont confuse right, and wrong, with respect, or altruism.

I dont have to like, condone, or respect what Hitler ultimately did, but on the other hand, look what he did for the German people, before 1939.
He pulled the economy out of the crapper, and gave the German people what they hadnt had in decades.
Self-respect.

Is that worth respect?

I would say so, despite the mass-murdering shitbag he would soon become.

Your examples are some awfully extreme ones, and have very little to do with most people.

Your attitude concerning respecting military personnel seems very black or white.
Can you not respect an aspect of a person, if not the entire person?

Just making sure. Every since Dances With Samurai, er, I mean, The Last Samurai came out I have read much about how noble and honorable they were when in fact many were right bastards.


Then it sounds as if we are in agreement.


Even though I despise that Cruise person...I do admit I liked that movie.

Ken Watanabe rules.

Well those are some pretty damn extreme extremes, you have there.

Lets start with the worst..

Was anything Hitler did respectable?
No, not by his actions.
However, dont confuse right, and wrong, with respect, or altruism.

I dont have to like, condone, or respect what Hitler ultimately did, but on the other hand, look what he did for the German people, before 1939.
He pulled the economy out of the crapper, and gave the German people what they hadnt had in decades.
Self-respect.

Is that worth respect?

I would say so, despite the mass-murdering shitbag he would soon become.

Your examples are some awfully extreme ones, and have very little to do with most people.

Your attitude concerning respecting military personnel seems very black or white.
Can you not respect an aspect of a person, if not the entire person?

I can respect a soldier as a human being, yes. But other than that, simply being a soldier doesn't merit my respect.

Well I had 3 great uncles killed in Russia, a grandfather who one an Iron Cross for bravery on the battlefield, a great grandfather (was dutch but emigrated to Germany, and fought in the Imperial Army in WW1, was one of the first volunteers). one of my ancestors fought in the battle of Dresden against the Swedish (30 years war).
I respect my sires, they all were in the army voluntarily before drafting started. This in no way means I support the Nazis, but support there Patriotic bravery to fight when there Fatherland was at war.
Also I respect people not for who they fought for but by there deeds, Rommel is one of my idols, so is Bismarck and Hindenburg, as is the Red Baron, but also Macarthur and Eisenhower, and Lawrence of Arabia. Deeds are what make men.


And let me guess... you don't live in Germany, and you've never seen nor heard of forst hand of the artrocities some of those "heros" commited nor of the suffering they caused?

I can respect a soldier as a human being, yes. But other than that, simply being a soldier doesn't merit my respect.


Then it seems as though you dont have respect at all.

To me, its natural to have at least, as Ive said, a certain measure of respect for anyone who has a difficult job, and who tries as hard as they can, to do that job well.
Soldiering, is certainly a hard job, and certainly one I wouldnt want to do.

Then it seems as though you dont have respect at all.

To me, its natural to have at least, as Ive said, a certain measure of respect for anyone who has a difficult job, and who tries as hard as they can, to do that job well.
Soldiering, is certainly a hard job, and certainly one I wouldnt want to do.

To be honest, I have a lot of respect for people who work in jobs serving others, for nurses, teachers, bus drivers, postmen, doctors, firemen etc.
I just don't have much respect for people who choose a profession that ultimately involves killing people. Believe it or not, I do have a distinct moral problem with that.

And I watched a piece on the Jim Lehrer Newshour about it, and a good number of the kids there said they'd go because that would make their tertiary education cheaper, and give them the money needed to start it.

Enlisteds I assume? For some people money will always be a factor. However anyone who sees th army as a good way to pay for education as a screw loose.

You can go on about how great heroes they all are,

You don't need to be a hero to deserve respect.

but the fact of the matter is that neither they nor you would do it if there wasn't something you got out of it (even if it is simply a "W00T, I'm a soldier, respect me!"-factor).

Ah such a lovely egoist 'I know your motivations better than you do', why thanks. Why should I even bother arguing with you when you can tell me why I'm doing something?

What bias? My belief in personal accountability?

More to do with the fact that you're calling something illegal when there are in fact no laws by which it could be judged illegal.

Why would I lose the respect of soldiers for claiming they know what they're doing?

They know what they're doing. You however do not seem to have a grasp on what they're doing. As a consquence of that you'll likely loose their respect.

Not to mention that you know nothing about me. I am not in the army, but that could've easily been the case. Don't project your blind nationalism & refusal to think onto all the soldiers of the world. I wager a great many of them agree with what I wrote. I know quite a few who do.

:yawn:

To be honest, I have a lot of respect for people who work in jobs serving others, for nurses, teachers, bus drivers, postmen, doctors, firemen etc.
I just don't have much respect for people who choose a profession that ultimately involves killing people. Believe it or not, I do have a distinct moral problem with that.


Well, you probably dont have much respect for a proffession that involves shoveling shit, but your probably thankful plumbers exist, arent you?

You dont have to like shit, but a working toilet sure is nice, huh?

Hey i NEVER said war was useless, i said youd be an idiot to go to one, i mean come on... your not going to be payed much and you might die, its a stupid choice. plus if you had read what i said you would have seen i admitted they were fighting for their population in that sense.

Actually you said they (in this case pilots in particular) should put their efforts toward something useful, strongly implying that war is useless.

Well, you probably dont have much respect for a proffession that involves shoveling shit, but your probably thankful plumbers exist, arent you?

You dont have to like shit, but a working toilet sure is nice, huh?

One of my friends is a plumber, and yes, I respect him for doing that kind of work.
As for shoveling shit, I used to clean in a hospital, and both my mother and my brother are nurses. So, yes, I did that, and I didn't expect anybody to fall to their knees in respect for that.

snip*


I think that people that put themselves out there to protect society. Military, Police and fireman of the world should get a certain level of respect. I think there are alot of people that say "not me!" when it comes to these professions. These people have voluntarily risked there lives to help others. Somehow they should be viewed as the same as everyone else? I think these types of people are more important than the couch sitting do nothing. To say that you dont think they need respect is really a sad telling of your own personality.

I think that people that put themselves out there to protect society. Military, Police and fireman of the world should get a certain level of respect. I think there are alot of people that say "not me!" when it comes to these professions. These people have voluntarily risked there lives to help others. Somehow they should be viewed as the same as everyone else? I think these types of people are more important than the couch sitting do nothing. To say that you dont think they need respect is really a sad telling of your own personality.
And where are the police and fireman requiring they be respected more than anyone else?

To be honest, I have a lot of respect for people who work in jobs serving others, for nurses, teachers, bus drivers, postmen, doctors, firemen etc.
I just don't have much respect for people who choose a profession that ultimately involves killing people. Believe it or not, I do have a distinct moral problem with that.

Problem is that there are people that want to kill you. So there are people that need to take up arms and protect you. One being the police and on a national level the military. If you have a moral dilema dont take up arms. Simple as that really. But I dont think you should look down on ones that protect your life.

One of my friends is a plumber, and yes, I respect him for doing that kind of work.
As for shoveling shit, I used to clean in a hospital, and both my mother and my brother are nurses. So, yes, I did that, and I didn't expect anybody to fall to their knees in respect for that.


If I were infirmed, and couldnt help but poop myself, and you were the unlucky soul who got to clean me up, I for one, would respect the hell out of you for it.

Problem is that there are people that want to kill you. So there are people that need to take up arms and protect you. One being the police and on a national level the military. If you have a moral dilema dont take up arms. Simple as that really. But I dont think you should look down on ones that protect your life.
We don't look down on people who protect our life. We look down on people who stand around demanding respect and crying wolf if they don't get it.

As far as I go with this subject is that,
One - Military Families don't need donations of Toys
Two - Respect for them to do things what you would never do in real life, as you don't have the courage to do so
Three - To have the guts to follow what you feel is right would likely get you killed faster then having a bright orange outfit with lights at night, namely because without orders things degrenate into chaos
Four - What the president orders can be vetoed by another part of the government, thusly they must all agree that it is necessary
Five - Republicians will generally support military action more then democrats because of the "freedom" involved
Six - Most wars that we were in, from Revolution of 13 Colonies, War of 1812, Spanish - American War, War againist Mexico, World War One, World War Two, Korean War, Cold War, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Desert Shield and Iraq War were done for the freedom of our own or for other people, if people are like us then they would see like us thusly would limit most attacks to terrorists which would be what we are trying to go after.
Seven - Soldiers may not fight but they serve their country without any real questions, which may help out the country more then anything esle, more then trying to boycott or yell "Bush lied!!".
Eight - Being Drafted isn't terrible, as you aren't being sent directly into the war, it works like a line system, first line would be active soldiers, then there would another line of active, third would be reserves and fourth would be first batch of draftees. When the first line goes, the second takes care of the work of the first and so forth, thusly draftees would be trained to take care of the work that they would do before they get sent over.
:mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

Problem is that there are people that want to kill you. So there are people that need to take up arms and protect you. One being the police and on a national level the military. If you have a moral dilema dont take up arms. Simple as that really. But I dont think you should look down on ones that protect your life.

In my experience, neither soldiers nor police protected me when I needed it. I cannot attribute the fact that I'm still alive to either the military or the police.
Today, I might ask for protection by police (as they are unarmed in this country), but not by soldiers. If somebody wants to kill me, let them go ahead.

I don't look down upon them, but I don't see any reason whatsoever to look up to them, either.

If I were infirmed, and couldnt help but poop myself, and you were the unlucky soul who got to clean me up, I for one, would respect the hell out of you for it.

I can assure you that you would be one of a very select few, then. And I mean VERY select.

In my experience, neither soldiers nor police protected me when I needed it. I cannot attribute the fact that I'm still alive to either the military or the police.
Today, I might ask for protection by police (as they are unarmed in this country), but not by soldiers. If somebody wants to kill me, let them go ahead.

I don't look down upon them, but I don't see any reason whatsoever to look up to them, either.
Your opinon on that matter might have been different in 1940. Active duty soldiers stand ready for the worst case scenario. Whether it has hit or not is essentially besides the point.

In my experience, neither soldiers nor police protected me when I needed it. I cannot attribute the fact that I'm still alive to either the military or the police.
Today, I might ask for protection by police (as they are unarmed in this country), but not by soldiers. If somebody wants to kill me, let them go ahead.

I don't look down upon them, but I don't see any reason whatsoever to look up to them, either.

How about becuase if it werent due to some brave souls 60 years ago, you'd be living in an Nazi-occupied country?

I can assure you that you would be one of a very select few, then. And I mean VERY select.


Well, as Im not fond of lying in my own filth...I'd be grateful, at the very least.

How about becuase if it werent due to some brave souls 60 years ago, you'd be living in an Nazi-occupied country?

Two possibilities there:

1) I wouldn't care because I would be brainwashed from birth, and I would be cheering the government and the military
2) I would already be dead.

The second one is somewhat more likely, given my personal history.

I don't think we should support the military, if it weren't for the army there wouldn't be so many wars! (of course politicians have to do with this too) But mainly the army is THE tool of preferance to oppress the people.
So I'm against it

Well, as Im not fond of lying in my own filth...I'd be grateful, at the very least.

I somehow doubt it. I think you'd be one of those who simply hate their situation, who are forced to live without what they percieve as dignity, and without any more quality of living than lying in bed all day staring at the ceiling, basically waiting for death, no hope left.
You would hate and despise everybody who further reminds you of your helplessness and situation, first of all the nurses who wash and feed you...

Two possibilities there:

1) I wouldn't care because I would be brainwashed from birth, and I would be cheering the government and the military
2) I would already be dead.

The second one is somewhat more likely, given my personal history.


Forgive me if Im generalizing about a people I barely know, but your tag says youre from Ireland...

Fond of the English, are you?

Brainwashed to like them were you?

How about becuase if it werent due to some brave souls 60 years ago, you'd be living in an Nazi-occupied country?
In that case, you would be righting the same thing about capitalists or the like.

I somehow doubt it. I think you'd be one of those who simply hate their situation, who are forced to live without what they percieve as dignity, and without any more quality of living than lying in bed all day staring at the ceiling, basically waiting for death, no hope left.
You would hate and despise everybody who further reminds you of your helplessness and situation, first of all the nurses who wash and feed you...


Heh.
Looks like you dont know me very well.

Forgive me if Im generalizing about a people I barely know, but your tag says youre from Ireland...

Fond of the English, are you?

Brainwashed to like them were you?

I'm from Germany, living in Ireland. I generally like the English, I've yet to meet an Irish person who really doesn't like them

Heh.
Looks like you dont know me very well.

Hardly at all, to be precise. But so far, you display all the characteristics ;)

Two possibilities there:

1) I wouldn't care because I would be brainwashed from birth, and I would be cheering the government and the military
2) I would already be dead.

The second one is somewhat more likely, given my personal history.
1) Granted that you'd be a lower class citizen and probably wouldn't be as educated as others, I think that brainwashing would be easier plus they'd try to make you feel right at home in the military by forming you into a little soldier with camps.
2) If America didn't go to fight WWII, there'd probably would have been less deaths as they found themselves losing.
3) Reasons why Hilter grew to power lead back to other governments enforcing unjust things againist Germany like having to pay for all damage during World War One.

..war crimes...
...
Im not saying you should love them for what they have done, but what I am saying is that right or wrong, they stood for what they believed.
That deserves respect, even if its contrary to what you believe.I have more respect for the ones refusing to kill on an immoral War of occupation...against a weak country that was not even in a position to pose a threat..

They are really standing up for what they believe...

So in checking my email, I found that I had received yet another forward of how such and such place does not "support" the troops because they refused to donate toys to children of servicemen (and women) and how this means we should launch a nationwide boycott.

This got me to thinking, why must we automatically honor military personnel above and beyond being respectful to anyone else?

I can hear the knees jerking already, so please read on before attempting to heat my cold Nagano house with your flames.

Yes, I know that people in the military have died for the freedoms I enjoyed while home (and technically in Japan, though not quite that way). However, I am also aware that most military people are NOT the ground pounders, sailors, or flyboys, but are support personnel. Indeed, one NSer related how his duties in the Navy consisted of playing PS2 while standing watch. The closest he got to combat was Mortal Kombat.

Most military people have never been in a fight, and have never fought for my freedom (Meaning any battle, let us not complicate things), and while you can say they enable the fighting men to fight; so do the civilians who build their weapons and equipment.

So why do we have to automatically (if I find out that the person I'm talking to is a real combat vet, that's different) honor above all others the troops; to the point that if a store or restaurant doesn't automatically offer freebies they are branded traitorous unpatriotic (and probably French) dogs and should be driving into bankruptcy by all right thinking Americans? After all, there have been some military people who have done evil things while in uniform as well.

I ask this especially in light of our all volunteer force. Because from civilians they come, and back to civilians they go, so why should I HAVE to treat them better than, say, the fireman?

With a name like that you don't know what it is to be of service to people out of no personal gain? All I can say is, if you got the yearly Target boycott, the whole story is crap. My brother works for Target Corp. and knows the truth of the story.

Ahem:
A marine walked into a Target and gave the story of wanting Target to help w/ a donation thing or something. He asked for a monetry donation on the spot. The Target Team Members politely informed him that Target handles all charitable donations through a corporate fund, and that he'd have to contact Corporate. Well, the Marine got very irate and declared that Target was unpatriotic because it wouldn't help him. He got all his Jarhead friends to believe his version of events and thy began this e-mail rumor of Target not supporting the troops...blah, blah, blah. [sigh]

PS: Target annually donates more money to charitable organizations than its' leading competitor, Wal-Mart.

PPS: The story is from memory, so if I got an instance wrong, that's my fault and in no way shape or form was this an official release from Target Corp.

More to do with the fact that you're calling something illegal when there are in fact no laws by which it could be judged illegal.
Not every nation involved is called America, and most of them actually recognise international law. Unprovoked invasions are illegal - if you bother to recognise laws exist.


They know what they're doing. You however do not seem to have a grasp on what they're doing. As a consquence of that you'll likely loose their respect.And you know this how?
I know plenty of both active & former soldiers who're deeply shamed by our governments actions, and have absolutely no respect for the people who blindly follow like a herd of lemmings.:yawn:Ok, I see. I conceed everything I've said. Your display of intellect & brilliant argumentation have changed my mind. Hell, changed my life. I even think I feel Jesus in my pocket!

We don't have to honour military personnel. I don't respect them any more than I do anyone else. They're volunteering for a job that they're being paid reasonably for. Why should I feel the need the need to honour one person especially and not another based solely on their occupation? Military personnel are already getting their reward for their job: money, free tuition, etc. They don't need me to honour them, and they shouldn't expect it. I've noticed some people talking about how much honour these people have. If they have so much honour, they don't need mine.

I'm from Germany, living in Ireland. I generally like the English, I've yet to meet an Irish person who really doesn't like them

well then, You dont apply to my loose, generalizing blanket statement.

Ask the next IRA member you meet, then.

I have more respect for the ones refusing to kill on an immoral War of occupation...against a weak country that was not even in a position to pose a threat..

They are really standing up for what they believe...


I agree wholeheartedly, but that by no means I cant have respect for the other side.

Not every nation involved is called America, and most of them actually recognise international law. Unprovoked invasions are illegal - if you bother to recognise laws exist.

Perhaps you could point me to this tome of international law? You also happen to not have a good grasp on the particular instances and potential legal backings to the Iraqi war. But frankly there doesn't need to be a legal backing given the moral backing that does exist. Eh. This thread is not about the Iraq war and I'm not going to end up debating it.

And you know this how?
I know plenty of both active & former soldiers who're deeply shamed by our governments actions, and have absolutely no respect for the people who blindly follow like a herd of lemmings.

:yawn: you know plenty and I know hundreds. So what? If your going to base your respect for people simply based on how closely their beliefs match yours then you don't actually respect anyone. Majority of soldiers in Iraq feel that they are trying to help that nation. They are acting on that belief. Now they could be wrong, but they should be respected for their actions to try and bring about that outcome.

Ok, I see. I conceed everything I've said. Your display of intellect & brilliant argumentation have changed my mind. Hell, changed my life. I even think I feel Jesus in my pocket!

I'm a deist actually. But I could certainly point you towards a church.

I agree wholeheartedly, but that by no means I cant have respect for the other side.you are 100% correct...you CAN honor and have respect for whatever side you wish...

You can even honor and have respect for both sides USA+Germans.....USA+Iraquis...etc

What dont agree is with the Words "Have to Honor..."

I have more respect for the ones refusing to kill on an immoral War of occupation...They are really standing up for what they believe...

To say that one refuses to kill out of moral objections is simply trying to hide their own cowardice. Intellectuals and the like are those, who, with words, hide their own greed and cowardice.

Here are my definitions of both:

Greed: The lack of a moral or virtuous mind that allows for self want or self gain. Attachment to material things, even family, that disuades a person from doing one's duty, is the basis of Greed.

Cowardice: The Chinese character for 'cowardice' is made by combining the character for 'meaning' and the character radical for 'mind.' Now, 'meaning' is discrimination, and when a man attaches discrimination to his true mind, he becomes a coward.

-Adapted from Hagakure, Yamamoto Tsunetomo

To say that one refuses to kill out of moral objections is simply trying to hide their own cowardice. Intellectuals and the like are those, who, with words, hide their own greed and cowardice.




Congratulations.

I award you with the Bullshit Statement of the Day.

To say that one refuses to kill out of moral objections is simply trying to hide their own cowardice.

Intellectuals and the like are those, who, with words, hide their own greed and cowardice.

So, when did your train leave reality and when is it scheduled to return?

So, when did your train leave reality and when is it scheduled to return?
In reality it is generally true, to say to kill is wrong often states that a person is afraid to pull the trigger. There are people willing to pull that trigger, without the fear of moral reprecussions of such actions. Holy Wars are fun when you do terrible things then yell out "God" then suddenly you are free of any sin of doing the actions.

In reality it is generally true, to say to kill is wrong often states that a person is afraid to pull the trigger.

Yep, but there are plenty of people who do have enough of a moral objection to the idea of killing that it is not cowardice.

There are people willing to pull that trigger, without the fear of moral reprecussions of such actions. Holy Wars are fun when you do terrible things then yell out "God" then suddenly you are free of any sin of doing the actions.

Fun doesn't seem an appropriate word.

Yep, but there are plenty of people who do have enough of a moral objection to the idea of killing that it is not cowardice.



Fun doesn't seem an appropriate word.
But moral object often turns back to not wanting to or being afraid to do so. Most moral objection comes from religion of some kind.
It is, if you think about it. If that's how people on the other side attacking us feels, and we're generally busy fighting wars for other countries and saying "Bush lied!"

You don't, and you shouldn't if you don't want to, as they also fought for your freedom not to. Anyone who says you have to is insulting what they fought for in the first place.
A good point well made. It might be worth mentioning this to some of the neocon media pundits and the chimp though: using his veteran's day address to lambast those who aren't supporting his vulgar display of power in Iraq is showing even less respect for the troops than Cindy Sheehan does, imo.

Most moral objection comes from religion of some kind.I dont need religion to tell me killing others is wrong...

A good point well made. It might be worth mentioning this to some of the neocon media pundits and the chimp though: using his veteran's day address to lambast those who aren't supporting his vulgar display of power in Iraq is showing even less respect for the troops than Cindy Sheehan does, imo.
http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/7535/dontletyourmind2uk.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

I dont need religion to tell me killing others is wrong...
That's generally where most of it comes from
its a sin to kill others, doing so would get you into hell.
Very popular line of though but doesn't help those serving.
To say killing is wrong in general is accepted world wide, they only justify killing if it is to protect their family or country.

I ask this especially in light of our all volunteer force. Because from civilians they come, and back to civilians they go, so why should I HAVE to treat them better than, say, the fireman?

I was in combat as an infantryman. I would say that I could not have been on the front line if there weren't support troops in the rear. In fact, my job would have been impossible.

Sure, the rear echelon is full of slackers - but aside from playing their PS2s, they do some valuable work. And in places like Iraq, it's the support troops who are taking the brunt of casualties because they are far easier for insurgents to attack. In places where there are no front lines, and the support troops are lightly armed and armored, it's just as dangerous for them, if not more so.

You don't have to respect us - in fact, I've seen enough on local campuses in this area to know that quite a few people would love to spit on us.

We do the dirty jobs so you don't have to. One might well wonder why we should bother to fight on behalf of people who could care less what happens to us.

That's generally where most of it comes from
its a sin to kill others, doing so would get you into hell.
Very popular line of though but doesn't help those serving.
To say killing is wrong in general is accepted world wide, they only justify killing if it is to protect their family or country.
If you are speeking of judeo-christian religous beliefs where does it say that killing for "country" is acceptable?

Most people add that to their own moral code without religous backing for it.

If you are speeking of judeo-christian religous beliefs where does it say that killing for "country" is acceptable?
It doesn't, which is one reason I've said several times that they don't let old soldiers into heaven. However, some people point to the passage in the Bible which deals with "the magistrate does not bear the sword in vain."

It doesn't, which is one reason I've said several times that they don't let old soldiers into heaven. However, some people point to the passage in the Bible which deals with "the magistrate does not bear the sword in vain."
Cool I will have to look that up

And I was not trying to call solders "sinners" rather point out that moral justifications are sometimes made withought heavy religious backing by even religous folks.
(to support the point that morals do not have to be defined by religion)

You don't have to respect us - in fact, I've seen enough on local campuses in this area to know that quite a few people would love to spit on us.

We do the dirty jobs so you don't have to. One might well wonder why we should bother to fight on behalf of people who could care less what happens to us.
I've done considerable thinking about this. The conclusion I've arrived at is that we were ( are ) professional soldiers working on behalf of a Democracy. We defend not only all members of the democracy, we also defend their right to be wrong. What those who think ill of us, or who couldn't care less about us are still our responsibility because of our professionalism and honor. What they say or think is their responsibility, not ours.

Cool I will have to look that up

And I was not trying to call solders "sinners" rather point out that moral justifications are sometimes made withought heavy religious backing by even religous folks.
(to support the point that morals do not have to be defined by religion)
I tend to agree, although there are many who do not. I consider it a matter for philosophical conjecture, rather than cause for real concern.

Besides, no one wants a mob of rowdy soldiers messing up the peace and quiet of everyone else in heaven! :D

EDIT: Romans 13:4

I've done considerable thinking about this. The conclusion I've arrived at is that we were ( are ) professional soldiers working on behalf of a Democracy. We defend not only all members of the democracy, we also defend their right to be wrong. What those who think ill of us, or who couldn't care less about us are still our responsibility because of our professionalism and honor. What they say or think is their responsibility, not ours.
Good viewpoint

I also want to note some of us that do not agree with current actions are only tryong to change the focus of the democracy or their orders. Not to deride the people that are only doing their job in folowing what that government says.

Though to be fair on the origional topic I find respect earned not just granted (beyond basic human respect) if I find the person in my own experiences with them to be deserving of respect they get it weather the were in the millitary or just shovled shit their whole life

What the person did for a living does not automaticaly qualify them one way or the other (to an extent I know it is unresonable to say that people can compleatly eliminate bias but some of us try)

But if that person deserves respect they get it from me

I tend to agree, although there are many who do not. I consider it a matter for philosophical conjecture, rather than cause for real concern.

Besides, no one wants a mob of rowdy soldiers messing up the peace and quiet of everyone else in heaven! :D

EDIT: Romans 13:4
Lol assuming I end up there ... I wouldent mind partying with them lol

We do the dirty jobs so you don't have to. One might well wonder why we should bother to fight on behalf of people who could care less what happens to us.

One might well wonder, indeed. If the soldiers don't like it, they shouldn't become soldiers. Since there is no conscription at the moment, they are free to abstain from enlisting.

I've always found it amusing that soldiers in this day and age still go around saying that they're fighting "for freedom" or "for their people." Maybe it's just my cynical mind, but I don't believe that and never have. Soldiers fight for the money, the glory, the rush, the prestige or any combination thereof. Any soldier who truly believed that they were fighting for a cause would do it for free. Show me a soldier who is fighting for no reward other than the knowledge that he has done good in the world and I will honour him.

One might well wonder, indeed. If the soldiers don't like it, they shouldn't become soldiers. Since there is no conscription at the moment, they are free to abstain from enlisting.

I've always found it amusing that soldiers in this day and age still go around saying that they're fighting "for freedom" or "for their people." Maybe it's just my cynical mind, but I don't believe that and never have. Soldiers fight for the money, the glory, the rush, the prestige or any combination thereof. Any soldier who truly believed that they were fighting for a cause would do it for free. Show me a soldier who is fighting for no reward other than the knowledge that he has done good in the world and I will honour him.

Then you explain why I left a job in the mid-1980s that paid roughly 120,000 dollars a year and enlisted in the US Army (as an infantryman) for 1/10th of that salary.

Thought I was doing good. Especially when we liberated Kuwait.

Like I said, you don't have to respect me, thank me, or think well of me.

Would you take a bullet for Bush?
I sure as hell wouldnt, but others would..kudos to them.Would I take a bullet for Bush?
Abso-fucking-lutely not, but others would, for some dumb reason.

Would I take a bullet for Bush?
Abso-fucking-lutely not, but others would, for some dumb reason.

You're obviously confused. The vast majority of those who serve in combat today never take a bullet, or are even wounded.

Then you explain why I left a job in the mid-1980s that paid roughly 120,000 dollars a year and enlisted in the US Army (as an infantryman) for 1/10th of that salary.

Thought I was doing good. Especially when we liberated Kuwait.

Like I said, you don't have to respect me, thank me, or think well of me.

I respect you, but I'm not going to pay you any more respect than anyone else for doing a job that you freely chose to do for fair reward. Now, personally, I would have said that leaving a well-paying job to join the army as a rank-and-file bullet-catcher was a bad decision, but it was your decision to make and I'm sure you had your reasons for doing so. I doubt your stated motives, but like I said, maybe I'm just cynical when it comes to these things.

There is honour in individuals, not in their paid jobs or the organisations they belong to.

Edit: However, I respect you as an individual a hell of a lot more than I respect, say, corporate CEO's who walk away from a 6-month job with $15 million golden handshake or certain governments that lie to their people and take their country to war on dubious grounds. Take that as you will.

I had a roomie in college, wonderful guy. I really liked him. He was an ex-Marine and when he'd get drunk (which was often) he would tell the best stories about life in the Marines, including guard duty at Camp David where they would go and jerk off onto the president's doorknob (the 1st President Bush). But, he admited that he saw no combat, nothing. Why then he more deserving of respect than say, my other roomie, who didn't serve but instead has studied ChemE and is currently working as a state engineer as opposed to the ex-Marine who was a miner?
Anyone who spooged on the President's doorknob deserves virtually infinite respect. :D

Uh, most people treat Firemen with rather large doses of respect. Though Cops tend to get a bad rap.The cops deserve that rap (http://www3.sympatico.ca/ron666/bcnd.html). Firefighters rarely cause any trouble.

The cops deserve that rap (http://www3.sympatico.ca/ron666/bcnd.html). Firefighters rarely cause any trouble.

A firefighter is not as likely to shoot you, or beat you, without cause.

I was in the U.S. Navy. No, I wouldn't call myself a front-line combatant.

But I wasn't exactly the ship's barber either. :p

I was a EW technician. The equipment I was trained on allowed me to do several jobs including collect information to identify targets. But the single most important job my equipment allowed me to do was ASMD. Anti-Ship Missile Defense.

Quite simply, if a target threatened my ship, it was MY job to delay the launch of any missiles for as long as I could. If missiles were launched at my ship, it was MY job to make sure they didn't hit. The lives of the crew were in my hands and mine alone. COmpared to the equipment that I used, systems like CIWS were unreliable at best. As far as I was concerned, I was the ONLY reliable defense against attack. It was a job I trained for constantly and had to take VERY seriously.

It's also a job I never had to do outside of drills.Nobody ever launched a missile at my ship. Hell, I never even saw a targeting radar outside of practice.

However, I also sacrificed 5 years of my life performing tasks that don't come naturally(like folding my clothes. :p ) and suppressed the wilder natures of my individuality to serve a cause higher than myself(the defense of my country).

For some, I suppose it is't much of a sacrifice and the rewards are impressive. But in my opinion, anybody that voluntarily joins the military is making a very dear sacrifice for the greater good of his -and your- country.

A little appreciation doesn't seem like too much to ask.


ON THE OTHER HAND, if such appreciation is expected, or somehow obligated(Such as by boycotting companies who don't contribute to military charities), I question the motivations of those who have these expectations.

Forced gratitude is meaningless.

A firefighter is not as likely to shoot you, or beat you, without cause.

I've been blasted with a firehose by one though. Hurt like hell. :p

Enlisteds I assume? For some people money will always be a factor. However anyone who sees th army as a good way to pay for education as a screw loose.My ex-wife gets $1400/month to go to school full-time from the Veterans' Administration for having served 5 years in the Army. You can get quite a bit more today.

It shouldn't matter about the legality of Iraq. What matters is that these troops were TOLD that someone was putting lives in danger. Going off with the goal of defusing a threat is commanding of at least some respect. If they were given faulty information, that should not revoke their respect, only remove it from the one responsible for the misinformation.

You're obviously confused. The vast majority of those who serve in combat today never take a bullet, or are even wounded.
You are the one who's confused. I was responding to someone else who asked that question. Now, I'm not sure who he was talking about, but I imagined Secret Service agents.

Good viewpoint

I also want to note some of us that do not agree with current actions are only tryong to change the focus of the democracy or their orders. Not to deride the people that are only doing their job in folowing what that government says.

Though to be fair on the origional topic I find respect earned not just granted (beyond basic human respect) if I find the person in my own experiences with them to be deserving of respect they get it weather the were in the millitary or just shovled shit their whole life

What the person did for a living does not automaticaly qualify them one way or the other (to an extent I know it is unresonable to say that people can compleatly eliminate bias but some of us try)

But if that person deserves respect they get it from me
An admirable position indeed, young dweeb! My hat's off to you. :)

Lol assuming I end up there ... I wouldent mind partying with them lol
Oh man! I don't know if you could hang, dude! I mean, soldiers sometimes get into some serious partying! :D

Oh man! I don't know if you could hang, dude! I mean, soldiers sometimes get into some serious partying! :D



translation

'serious partying' = 'gang rape'

One might well wonder, indeed. If the soldiers don't like it, they shouldn't become soldiers. Since there is no conscription at the moment, they are free to abstain from enlisting.

I've always found it amusing that soldiers in this day and age still go around saying that they're fighting "for freedom" or "for their people." Maybe it's just my cynical mind, but I don't believe that and never have. Soldiers fight for the money, the glory, the rush, the prestige or any combination thereof. Any soldier who truly believed that they were fighting for a cause would do it for free. Show me a soldier who is fighting for no reward other than the knowledge that he has done good in the world and I will honour him.
You're wrong, pure and simple. Military personnel join for a wide variety of reasons, one of them being idealism. I know. That was my original reason for joining. If you wind up in combat, however, your primary reason for staying, and for doing your best, gradually becomes to back up your fellow soldiers.

Then you explain why I left a job in the mid-1980s that paid roughly 120,000 dollars a year and enlisted in the US Army (as an infantryman) for 1/10th of that salary.

Thought I was doing good. Especially when we liberated Kuwait.

Like I said, you don't have to respect me, thank me, or think well of me.
Well, for what it's worth, bro, I respect you, thank you and think very highly of you. [ renders hand salute ]

Would I take a bullet for Bush?
Abso-fucking-lutely not, but others would, for some dumb reason.
That's strange ... I would take one for you.

I respect you, but I'm not going to pay you any more respect than anyone else for doing a job that you freely chose to do for fair reward. Now, personally, I would have said that leaving a well-paying job to join the army as a rank-and-file bullet-catcher was a bad decision, but it was your decision to make and I'm sure you had your reasons for doing so. I doubt your stated motives, but like I said, maybe I'm just cynical when it comes to these things.

There is honour in individuals, not in their paid jobs or the organisations they belong to.
http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/8919/hardtopronounce6dj.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Six - Most wars that we were in, from Revolution of 13 Colonies, War of 1812, Spanish - American War, War againist Mexico, World War One, World War Two, Korean War, Cold War, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Desert Shield and Iraq War were done for the freedom of our own or for other people


Yeah...trying to stop a country from doing what the vast majority of it's citizens wanted to do just because of some dumb irrational fear about the "spread of ebil communism!", and massacring countless innocent iraqis in the process was REALLY fighting for their freedom. Not that they deserved it, eh? Damn gooks.

translation

'serious partying' = 'gang rape'
http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/8112/smileytroutsmack4pg.gif (http://imageshack.us)

Yeah...trying to stop a country from doing what the vast majority of it's citizens wanted to do just because of some dumb irrational fear about the "spread of ebil communism!", and massacring countless innocent iraqis in the process was REALLY fighting for their freedom. Not that they deserved it, eh? Damn gooks.
That was the cold war, they feared that if communism spread outward it would lead to another world war III, and vietnam is the only war we techincally have lost.

Yeah...trying to stop a country from doing what the vast majority of it's citizens wanted to do just because of some dumb irrational fear about the "spread of ebil communism!", and massacring countless innocent iraqis in the process was REALLY fighting for their freedom. Not that they deserved it, eh? Damn gooks.
http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/6140/cheesewithwhine6au.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/8919/hardtopronounce6dj.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Very droll, I'm sure. Did you just discover a shiny new source of lame pictures today, or something?

It's only natural for soldiers to be blinkered when it comes to other soldiers, I suppose. One side of my family has a long (and "proud") military tradition, and I've met a lot of soldiers over the years. I've found claims of idealism from soldiers to be suspect, at best. Maybe I've just been unlucky in only meeting soldiers who are arrogant, aggressive, self-obsessed louts?

Reading this thread, I've pretty much restrained myself from saying much. I guess I'm somewhat relieved at how cool and calm it's all going. I don't automatically have extra respect for those who've served. It kind of depends on what comes out when they open their mouths.

I really don't think I can express how I feel about this stuff right now better than Fred Reed does in these two articles:

Wanna Enlist? (http://www.fredoneverything.net/GoingToWar.shtml)
Soldiers and the Press (http://www.fredoneverything.net/SoldiersAndPress.shtml)

For whatever it's worth, I served 4 years in the US Army. I wouldn't necessarily say that I regret it, but I'm greatful that stayed out of harm's way and don't recommend others to join.

One thing that does bother me is the way some folks seem to feel guilty that they themselves have not and would not serve while others do. Please, don't worry about it.

That's strange ... I would take one for you.
Well, that's very nice of you. At least you're significantly older than me and would probably die sooner anyway. :p

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/8112/smileytroutsmack4pg.gif (http://imageshack.us)

OOh! New Smilie! *covets*

Mine! *steals it and bolts* :D

MP5, basically a submachine gun with .45 roundsThe MP5 is a 9mm Luger weapon. A few were produced in 10mm and .40 S&W.

So in checking my email, I found that I had received yet another forward of how such and such place does not "support" the troops because they refused to donate toys to children of servicemen (and women) and how this means we should launch a nationwide boycott.

<snip>




While the question of supporting those who sign up for the service should be - in my opinion - a no-brainer, the notion that started all this is rather troubling.

Many organizations already have charities that they devote great resources to. Maybe it was the brainchild of the founder. Maybe it relates to a disease that cost them the life of a valued co-worker. Maybe... insert any of a multitude of reasons here.

Support for the troops aside, the fact that people are attempting to coerce donations for a military-related charity by leveraging patriotism and threatening boycotts is fucking pathetic in my opinion.

And let's not go into the reasons why so many famillies of service personnel NEED charity to begin with, because that it another issue as well.

That was the cold war, they feared that if communism spread outward it would lead to another world war III, and vietnam is the only war we techincally have lost.

Yes...and why was Vietnam fought? To protect the poor wittle opressed Vietnamese from communism and support the glorious and benevolent Ngo Diem? Ever heard about anything called the "domino theory"?

Oh, and Eut...that wasn't a very appropriate picture. Making a sarcastic comment about the Vietnam war being about people's freedom is not whining...you running out of them pics or summat?

Congratulations.

I award you with the Bullshit Statement of the Day.

Thank you! On a sidenote; this just enhances my theory on concientious objectors. I acted appropriately towards you and your statment, and all you could do was lash out by using profanity. A Warrior is better than any moral objector (well, the good ones are) because of the virtues in which warfare instills. Rectitude; the right and appropriate acts towards those of higher station than yourself. Respect of those who are less fortunate and of lower rank than you as well as to those who fight against you. Honor of your family line and country. Loyalty to the precepts and founding principles of your people. Courage to withstand attacks from both the enemy and those you protect. Benevolence to those around you and towards your enemy. Honesty in expression and form.

BTW: How could my grandfather be considered a hero during WWII and then spat on when he returned after his two tours in 67-68? Probably because of a proliferation of your kind.

Be well!

Thank you! On a sidenote; this just enhances my theory on concientious objectors. I acted appropriately towards you and your statment, and all you could do was lash out by using profanity. A Warrior is better than any moral objector (well, the good ones are) because of the virtues in which warfare instills. Rectitude; the right and appropriate acts towards those of higher station than yourself. Respect of those who are less fortunate and of lower rank than you as well as to those who fight against you. Honor of your family line and country. Loyalty to the precepts and founding principles of your people. Courage to withstand attacks from both the enemy and those you protect. Benevolence to those around you and towards your enemy. Honesty in expression and form.

BTW: How could my grandfather be considered a hero during WWII and then spat on when he returned after his two tours in 67-68? Probably because of a proliferation of your kind.

Be well!


No this enhances your opinion

The rest of us see that theory for what it is … BS

Profanity may not be “nice” but sometimes it accurately describes the situation.

No this enhances your opinion

The rest of us see that theory for what it is … BS

Profanity may not be “nice” but sometimes it accurately describes the situation.

Ridicule is not a valid argument, even when used against a specious argument, as it has been used in this case.

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/7535/dontletyourmind2uk.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
You don't feel that Bush's little tantrum on veteran's day was trying to make political capital of the number of lives he's wasted in Iraq, then?

Given that you made a statement suggesting that you agreed with my other point, I'd assume this is the only part you're in any position to find stupid.

Very droll, I'm sure. Did you just discover a shiny new source of lame pictures today, or something?

It's only natural for soldiers to be blinkered when it comes to other soldiers, I suppose. One side of my family has a long (and "proud") military tradition, and I've met a lot of soldiers over the years. I've found claims of idealism from soldiers to be suspect, at best. Maybe I've just been unlucky in only meeting soldiers who are arrogant, aggressive, self-obsessed louts?
Don't fret. Upward Thrust already winned to the Mods about the lil pics. I suppose they'll either tell me to stop or just delete my azz. They've been gunning for me for quite some time now. Sigh.

No. You've been unlucky because you're apparently unable to differentiate between "idealism" and "arrogance."

You don't feel that Bush's little tantrum on veteran's day was trying to make political capital of the number of lives he's wasted in Iraq, then?

Given that you made a statement suggesting that you agreed with my other point, I'd assume this is the only part you're in any position to find stupid.
Now, now, now! I didn't say anything you posted was "stupid" ( particularly with the Mods breathing down my neck! ). :D

His "tantrum" as you call it, didn't seem that way to me. Trying to put myself in his shoes for a minute, I can understand his willingness to go on the counterattack against those who continually assail him.

Don't fret. Upward Thrust already winned to the Mods about the lil pics. I suppose they'll either tell me to stop or just delete my azz. They've been gunning for me for quite some time now. Sigh.

No. You've been unlucky because you're apparently unable to differentiate between "idealism" and "arrogance."

Not to worry, Gramps, I won't let them delete you. If they delete you, they'll have to delete the rest of us, as well. :mad:

You don't feel that Bush's little tantrum on veteran's day was trying to make political capital of the number of lives he's wasted in Iraq, then?

Given that you made a statement suggesting that you agreed with my other point, I'd assume this is the only part you're in any position to find stupid.

I don't see them as wasted. Maybe you do, but I don't. And if he is making political capital, what are the Democrats doing? Looks like they're making hay while the sun shines.

Is it any wonder that polls show such skepticism about the Iraq venture? Few Americans are given the favorable news from Iraq: the double-digit surge in the Iraqi economy; the steady attrition of the terrorist leadership in the Sunni triangle by brave American and, increasingly, Iraqi troops; the impressive turnout for elections, another of which is scheduled for next week; the relative peace that exists in 80 percent of the country.

But go ahead and say it's all bad - all done for the wrong reasons - nothing was gained at all - let's go ahead and say ALL Iraqis hate that we overthrew Saddam - that it was better with the Sunnis lording it over the rest of them - that nothing was or will be accomplished that is good in this world if the US does it.

Now, now, now! I didn't say anything you posted was "stupid" ( particularly with the Mods breathing down my neck! ). :D
No, you used a form of nonverbal communication that implied you felt as much. Possibly I misinterpreted the gist of your insult.
His "tantrum" as you call it, didn't seem that way to me. Trying to put myself in his shoes for a minute, I can understand his willingness to go on the counterattack against those who continually assail him.
Tantrum might be overstating the case a bit, but there's a time and a place for everything, and no way in hell was that the proper time for him to start coming out with that nonsense. Making excuses for an invasion that you've started under false pretences (let's leave the freeing of the people of Iraq out of this as the reason given for the invasion was that Iraq had a stockpile of WMDs and ties to Al Queda, which made them a threat to the US, and this has been proven not to be the case) at a ceremony to honour the war dead is in bad taste, to say the least.
And really, if he has a problem with being "continually assailed" by people who disagree with his political views and the actions these leave to, then he's in the wrong job. It comes with the territory, surely?

Don't fret. Upward Thrust already winned to the Mods about the lil pics. I suppose they'll either tell me to stop or just delete my azz. They've been gunning for me for quite some time now. Sigh.

No. You've been unlucky because you're apparently unable to differentiate between "idealism" and "arrogance."

It sucks that mods are gunning for you. I mean, your pics may be lame, but they're not exactly banning material. :rolleyes:

As for my being unable to differentiate between "idealism" and "arrogance"... I'm perfectly capable, thank you. Are you? Years in the military seem to blur the lines for some people. Years in the military also seem to make some people believe that they are idealistic and selfless and worthy of having praise lavished upon them by everybody they meet. All part of the training, I guess.

Maybe we should just go back to this. And the thing that makes this better than anything the Americans do, fail to do, or do wrong, is that it will be done in secret, where we won't have to confront it or even discuss it. In our homes in the West, we can live comfortable lives and never know what horrors are perpetrated.

http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=uri:2005-12-05T170552Z_01_KWA483299_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-SADDAM-TRIAL.xml&pageNumber=1&summit=

Ahmed Hassan, 38, recounted how he and his family were seized and tortured after a 1982 attempt on the ousted leader's life in the Shi'ite Muslim town of Dujail.

"I swear by God, I walked by a room and ... saw a grinder with blood coming out of it and human hair underneath," Hassan told the court. During the testimony, Barzan, sitting behind Saddam in the dock, interrupted Hassan, shouting: "It's a lie!"

Hassan said: "My brother was given electric shocks while my 77-year-old father watched... One man was shot in the leg ... Some were crippled because they had arms and legs broken."

I don't see them as wasted. Maybe you do, but I don't. And if he is making political capital, what are the Democrats doing? Looks like they're making hay while the sun shines.
The democrats at least aren't doing it as their address at a ceremony to honour the war dead: as I've just explained to Eutrusca, that struck me as tasteless, arrogant, stupid and insulting to everyone who's ever given their life to protect your country.

The democrats at least aren't doing it as their address at a ceremony to honour the war dead: as I've just explained to Eutrusca, that struck me as tasteless, arrogant, stupid and insulting to everyone who's ever given their life to protect your country.

Speaking as a veteran, I didn't find it insulting at all.

I do find Murtha, Pelosi, and Reid insulting beyond all possible comprehension. Every time they open their mouth about Iraq.

translation

'serious partying' = 'gang rape'

Knock it off Valdania. If it was a joke, it certainly wasn't funny.

Thank you! On a sidenote; this just enhances my theory on concientious objectors. I acted appropriately towards you and your statment, and all you could do was lash out by using profanity. A Warrior is better than any moral objector (well, the good ones are) because of the virtues in which warfare instills. Rectitude; the right and appropriate acts towards those of higher station than yourself. Respect of those who are less fortunate and of lower rank than you as well as to those who fight against you. Honor of your family line and country. Loyalty to the precepts and founding principles of your people. Courage to withstand attacks from both the enemy and those you protect. Benevolence to those around you and towards your enemy. Honesty in expression and form.

BTW: How could my grandfather be considered a hero during WWII and then spat on when he returned after his two tours in 67-68? Probably because of a proliferation of your kind.

Be well!


Wow, somebody has a glorified view of warfare. If warriors are so naturally virtuous, how do you explain the acts upon victims of a siege? Or the way knights and samurai slaughtered peasants for fun? Or why American soilders shot dead innocent men, women and children at Mai Lai and all through the Vietnam war, mainly out of frustration at not being able to target the Vietcong?

On the contrary, I am glad that a good proportion of people who join the military are just being kept disciplined and away from the public, to be honest. That is not to say that all military men are evil or anything like that - just that at least some of the people who join do so because they are naturally agressive. It's good that the army is there so that they can hopefully discipline this agression and do an essential job.

For example, I used to be a really good friend with a kid when I used to hang around with a group of bad lads. He was a good person, but did have a bit of an agression problem, especially after I had drifted away from the group - he began threatening teachers and stuff. Anyway, he always wanted to join the army, was in the cadets and everything. He joined and is now serving in Iraq, but before he served in Kenya. In between these two he came back, and I saw him in the pub and got chatting.

He talked about how the army had 'sorted him out' and stuff, but then again he also told me how he'd found this group of dead Kenyans, killed by another tribe or something, and him and all his group just started shooting the bodies and laughing and stuff. He also said everyone he knows in the army votes BNP.

There was another example on the TV documentry "Soilders to be" that was on a few years back, whilch followed the training of army recruits. I remeber one kid who had being abused by his step father. He was really quiet and shy, but during the bayonet exercise, he stabbed the dummies so hard his bayonet broke. The sergeant praised him in front of the others for it.

Hopefully my friend and his BNP corpse shooting mates are just an oddity, but it does suggest that at least some people who you wouldn't want to live near you and it's good they are in the army join it.

Maybe we should just go back to this. And the thing that makes this better than anything the Americans do, fail to do, or do wrong, is that it will be done in secret, where we won't have to confront it or even discuss it. In our homes in the West, we can live comfortable lives and never know what horrors are perpetrated.

http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=uri:2005-12-05T170552Z_01_KWA483299_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-SADDAM-TRIAL.xml&pageNumber=1&summit=

Ahmed Hassan, 38, recounted how he and his family were seized and tortured after a 1982 attempt on the ousted leader's life in the Shi'ite Muslim town of Dujail.

"I swear by God, I walked by a room and ... saw a grinder with blood coming out of it and human hair underneath," Hassan told the court. During the testimony, Barzan, sitting behind Saddam in the dock, interrupted Hassan, shouting: "It's a lie!"

Hassan said: "My brother was given electric shocks while my 77-year-old father watched... One man was shot in the leg ... Some were crippled because they had arms and legs broken."
Yes, but nobody in the Bush administration gave a flying fuck about any of this when they started the occupation, remember? It was all about those WMDs, and people only started talking about what a bad hat Hussein is and how bad he is for human rights after that story fell over.

http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/8919/hardtopronounce6dj.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Despite the fact that you may be trying to 'lighten the mood', it still is image spam. Perhaps you could include a few sentences along with the pictures next time?

And let me guess... you don't live in Germany, and you've never seen nor heard of forst hand of the artrocities some of those "heros" commited nor of the suffering they caused?

I have heard, and seen. However none of my Family members served in the SS, only in the WehrMacht. They served in the army to serve there country, regardless of the alterior motives of there Superiors, they were just soldiers on the battlefield defending their homes and country, nothing more nothing less. And for that they have my respect.

Yes, but nobody in the Bush administration gave a flying fuck about any of this when they started the occupation, remember? It was all about those WMDs, and people only started talking about what a bad hat Hussein is and how bad he is for human rights after that story fell over.
Well, you should email the White House and tell them to put Saddam back in power, and have us high tail it out of there right away.

... American soilders shot dead innocent men, women and children ... all through the Vietnam war
Prove this, please.

Speaking as a veteran, I didn't find it insulting at all.

I do find Murtha, Pelosi, and Reid insulting beyond all possible comprehension. Every time they open their mouth about Iraq.
We can probably take it as read that we aren't going to agree on this one, but didn't Bush chosing this as the ideal time to deliver his little "I'm right and all the liberal whiners are wrong, shut up and stop criticising me" speech strike you as a little cynical?

Despite the fact that you may be trying to 'lighten the mood', it still is image spam. Perhaps you could include a few sentences along with the pictures next time?
Perhaps I could, yes.

Well, you should email the White House and tell them to put Saddam back in power, and have us high tail it out of there right away.
It'd probably be a more effective plan to establish order in Iraq than the one they're using at the moment.
I just find it laughable that this has suddenly become a moral issue about human rights and oppression since it turned out that the WMD story was horseshit. If the Republican party finds this sort of thing offensive, why on earth did they supply Hussein with the VX gas he used on the Kurds?

It'd probably be a more effective plan to establish order in Iraq than the one they're using at the moment.
I just find it laughable that this has suddenly become a moral issue about human rights and oppression since it turned out that the WMD story was horseshit. If the Republican party finds this sort of thing offensive, why on earth did they supply Hussein with the VX gas he used on the Kurds?

Well, today's friend is tomorrow's enemy, and vice versa.

Wow, somebody has a glorified view of warfare. If warriors are so naturally virtuous, how do you explain the acts upon victims of a siege? Or the way knights and samurai slaughtered peasants for fun? Or why American soilders shot dead innocent men, women and children at Mai Lai and all through the Vietnam war, mainly out of frustration at not being able to target the Vietcong?

On the contrary, I am glad that a good proportion of people who join the military are just being kept disciplined and away from the public, to be honest. That is not to say that all military men are evil or anything like that - just that at least some of the people who join do so because they are naturally agressive. It's good that the army is there so that they can hopefully discipline this agression and do an essential job.

For example, I used to be a really good friend with a kid when I used to hang around with a group of bad lads. He was a good person, but did have a bit of an agression problem, especially after I had drifted away from the group - he began threatening teachers and stuff. Anyway, he always wanted to join the army, was in the cadets and everything. He joined and is now serving in Iraq, but before he served in Kenya. In between these two he came back, and I saw him in the pub and got chatting.

He talked about how the army had 'sorted him out' and stuff, but then again he also told me how he'd found this group of dead Kenyans, killed by another tribe or something, and him and all his group just started shooting the bodies and laughing and stuff. He also said everyone he knows in the army votes BNP.

There was another example on the TV documentry "Soilders to be" that was on a few years back, whilch followed the training of army recruits. I remeber one kid who had being abused by his step father. He was really quiet and shy, but during the bayonet exercise, he stabbed the dummies so hard his bayonet broke. The sergeant praised him in front of the others for it.

Hopefully my friend and his BNP corpse shooting mates are just an oddity, but it does suggest that at least some people who you wouldn't want to live near you and it's good they are in the army join it.

If you had bothered to read my statement, you would see that I believe good warriors are virtuous. I also believe that a great restructuring and re-education is necessary in the military. At this time, the mentality is, "Cause we got the bombs an' the guns, that's why!" to justify warfare. I believe that it is because we have such a large and well-equipped military force that we should be the last to go to war. It is also up to this generation to ensure that everyone understands their part in the world and does what they can to make sure that peace will be the fruit of our long and noble history of war. Humankind cannot gain without losing something of equal value; therefore, logic suggests that peace can only be gained by ending warfare. The last people who should want to fight should be the military.

As for Mai-Lai, the officer responsible (I can't rightly remember his name) was tried and convicted of murder. Though his conviction was later pardoned by Pres. Nixon, it cannot be said that the military excuses violence of this sort.
As for your friend, I suggest contacting the nearest Judge Advocate General's office and reporting his war crime. It was a break in the ROE and military doctrine. If it was a UN mission, than contact the UN Commision on Human Rights.

Be well.

Prove this, please.

Many personal accounts testify that some soilders used to go on what were known as 'Turkey shoots', where they would shoot at random Vietnamese from helicopters. Others talked of the general disrespect for Vietnamese life - such as referring to insects as gooks and not caring whether who they shot were Vietcong or not. One man said his group used to say "If it's yellow, shoot it".

The fact that American soilders performed many atrocities in Vietnam is well known - I studied it at GCSE for a year, and got an A in my final exam. The only question is how widespread it is - after all, it could have just being a rare mindset that only cropped up in some groups, and was not at all present in others, which seems probable to me.

Ok, i'm going to go out on a limb here against the "they fought for your freedom so stfu" people: at no point has any serving personnel in the millitary ever fought a war who's outcome determines the continuing democratic and "free" nature of the United States. Infact there have only been three such wars in your nation's history: The War of Independence, The Civil War (not sure if this one counts though) and World War II. No-one who fought any of those wars is in any shape to fight in Iraq today. As it stands all the troops are doing is fighting for your oil/the establishment of a US favourable government in the middle east. Whether or not you can criticize them has absolutly nothing to do with what they're doing atm. They could choose to stop fighting the Islamist "Insurgents" on the other side of the planet from you and you wouldn't be able to criticize them any less because of it.

Ha, your first and second sentences contradict each other. Let's not forget the War of 1812 when British troops invaded America. And certainly the Civil War 'counts' because it preserved the union and then during the conflict bestowed freedom unto enslaved African-Americans, although one may contend the denial of the right to secede. However, could you clarify the following statement, "They could choose to stop fighting the Islamist "Insurgents" on the other side of the planet from you and you wouldn't be able to criticize them any less because of it[?]"

Ha, your first and second sentences contradict each other. Let's not forget the War of 1812 when British troops invaded America. And certainly the Civil War 'counts' because it preserved the union and then during the conflict bestowed freedom unto enslaved African-Americans, although one may contend the denial of the right to secede. However, could you clarify the following statement, "They could choose to stop fighting the Islamist "Insurgents" on the other side of the planet from you and you wouldn't be able to criticize them any less because of it[?]"
Perhaps he means no currently serving members of the US military? I'd imagine anyone who was involved during the second world war will have retired a while ago.

Maghda: inarguably. It's just that I can't help but suspect that the current mucking around in the middle east is going to have the same sort of consequences as (say) the money and training that was ploughed into the Mujahadeen twenty years ago.

Sorry, but no. I don't respect people who don't have the courage to do what they feel is right but rather choose the easy way of having others telling them what is right and what to do.
I would respect my grandfathers if they had acted out of their own conviction rather than feeding me excuses afterwards like "Those were the orders", "We didn't know any better", "We just did as we were told, you can't blame us"
As it is, I despise them from the bottom of my heart. The only good thing about both of them is that they learned from experience and took care that none of their sons ever got close to the military in any way.

Hmm, this is rather interesting. Yes, soldiers by today's standards (at least in the US military) may refuse orders on ethical and moral grounds. However, in the context of your grandfather's era in Germany, with Hitler's rampant National Socialism, one would have acted much differently. In Nazi Germany you had to actively demonstrate your patriotism for the Fatherland; being labeled as unpatriotic was like signing a death warrant. So yes, perhaps they should have acted out of their own conviction, but did they truly know any better? It's very easy to analyze 60 years after WWII and the travesty that still is the Holocaust. Yet, I imagine that your grandfather's were in the Wermarcht and not the SS. The average soldier in the Wermarcht wasn't necessarily an anti-Semite who loathed Jews. Rather, he (there were no women) was a young soldier who had recently found a new identity and pride after the humiliating 20s and 30s for Germany. I imagine many of us, placed in that same situation, would have served emphatically, if not willingly at least. Hitler was an incredible orator and 'statesmen;' so great was his prowess that he justified to enough people the need to exterminate Jews and other religious/cultural minorities. The real sick motherf*ckers were the SS; they ran the concentration camps and rounded up the persecuted peoples.

So, not to say that the German army is without blame, but at least your grandfathers fought for something they believed in (Patriotism, not necessarily 'Aryanism'). Few people can say they have done that. And yes, 60 years after the fact many people’s convictions have changed. At the time your grandfathers felt they were right, now we can see they were 'wrong,' or just unlucky to have lost the war. And even if they 'willingly' fought, they were more likely drafted. Even though THEY may have signed up, I'd bet that if they opted not to a few burly men in black trench coats and shiny black boots would appear at their door that night. So, what I'm saying is don't hate your grandfathers. Rather, take to heart their experience and hard-fought wisdom, and forgive them (which does not mean forget theirs and others' misdeeds).

One final note, I'm quite certain that someone will not carfully read this entire post and misconstrue an ill-spawned thought about who I am. I do not condone, nay, I vehemently denounce what the Nazis did to 6 million living, breathing, innocent persons before and during WWII. I am merely trying to elucidate a 'grey-area' point, which could provoke a whole host of reactions.

Hmm, this is rather interesting. Yes, soldiers by today's standards (at least in the US military) may refuse orders on ethical and moral grounds. However, in the context of your grandfather's era in Germany, with Hitler's rampant National Socialism, one would have acted much differently. In Nazi Germany you had to actively demonstrate your patriotism for the Fatherland; being labeled as unpatriotic was like signing a death warrant. So yes, perhaps they should have acted out of their own conviction, but did they truly know any better? It's very easy to analyze 60 years after WWII and the travesty that still is the Holocaust. Yet, I imagine that your grandfather's were in the Wermarcht and not the SS. The average soldier in the Wermarcht wasn't necessarily an anti-Semite who loathed Jews. Rather, he (there were no women) was a young soldier who had recently found a new identity and pride after the humiliating 20s and 30s for Germany. I imagine many of us, placed in that same situation, would have served emphatically, if not willingly at least. Hitler was an incredible orator and 'statesmen;' so great was his prowess that he justified to enough people the need to exterminate Jews and other religious/cultural minorities. The real sick motherf*ckers were the SS; they ran the concentration camps and rounded up the persecuted peoples.

So, not to say that the German army is without blame, but at least your grandfathers fought for something they believed in (Patriotism, not necessarily 'Aryanism'). Few people can say they have done that. And yes, 60 years after the fact many people’s convictions have changed. At the time your grandfathers felt they were right, now we can see they were 'wrong,' or just unlucky to have lost the war. And even if they 'willingly' fought, they were more likely drafted. Even though THEY may have signed up, I'd bet that if they opted not to a few burly men in black trench coats and shiny black boots would appear at their door that night. So, what I'm saying is don't hate your grandfathers. Rather, take to heart their experience and hard-fought wisdom, and forgive them (which does not mean forget theirs and others' misdeeds).

One final note, I'm quite certain that someone will not carfully read this entire post and misconstrue an ill-spawned thought about who I am. I do not condone, nay, I vehemently denounce what the Nazis did to 6 million living, breathing, innocent persons before and during WWII. I am merely trying to elucidate a 'grey-area' point, which could provoke a whole host of reactions.

Why would everybody assume that they were in the SS? Both of them were in the Wehrmacht, one of them doing the whole "tour", starting in Austria, transfered to Belgium and Holland, then to the Russian front and he found himself in Yugoslavia at the end of the war. He had actually emigrated to the States in the early 30's, but returned because he wanted to be part of what he obviously saw as great events in his home country.

The other one fought at the Eastern Front in the last two years of the war. He is a staunch Catholic and always believed that the war and everything that was in any way connected to Hitler and his ideologies was wrong, yet he "did as he was told".

Both of them recounted that it wasn't only the SS that commited war crimes and rounded up civilians. In the first years in Poland an Russia and during the last months, the Wehrmacht even carried out executions. Both knew that what they did was wrong, but neither of them had the courage to raise a finger against it. And try as I might, I can't find an excuse for that.
So, the fact that they were soldiers and took the easy way lost them a good deal of my respect.

I don't pressume that today's armies are in any way comparable, but I still don't find a reason to respect soldiers more than I would a cleaning woman, a dustman or a nurse.

First, William Calley was the name of the Lt. from Nam who was convicted of conducting the My Lai massacre..although, his immediate superior, a Captain Medina... and certain higher ups avoided prosecution.... which goes to the pipe dream that some one earlier promoted about "refusing" orders.. try that on the battlefield and see how far it gets you.. and the system is rigged in favor of covering the asses of the officers to the detriment of the enlisted personnel exercising what little latitude they may have.

War is all hell... and everything about it degrades humanity. Its only defense is the even worse horrors it may prevent, which, at best, is a judgement call you can only make after the fact. Anyone who has undergone such an ordeal has earned your respect for having survived such an evil time and still exhibiting some modicum of humanity. They are beyond the sloganeering, jingoism, and cheap bravado of those who were never there. They are honored because you are thankful that it was them and not you out there on the firing line.
To date we all still live in a world where conflicting cultural and national wills are, for however briefly, decided in this manner.

To the guy in Germany whose grandfathers served in the Wehrmacht during WWII and is conflicted--- cut them a little slack-- everyone served, there was no realistic choice that they had by that time. Its easy to be brave and judgmental in hindsight.

And I watched a piece on the Jim Lehrer Newshour about it, and a good number of the kids there said they'd go because that would make their tertiary education cheaper, and give them the money needed to start it.
You can go on about how great heroes they all are, but the fact of the matter is that neither they nor you would do it if there wasn't something you got out of it (even if it is simply a "W00T, I'm a soldier, respect me!"-factor).

You're speaking out of your ass. Before you crack it again why don't you consult other sources before you begin to critically analyze based off of one or two. Take me, for instance. I applied for an ROTC slot and scholarship. I won a scholarship in the Hoya Battalion at Georgetown University, and I was second on the 'merit list' of all candidates. In fact, to receive a scholarship in that program is more difficult than matriculating into West Point. However, because of an obscure past medical condition my scholarship was revoked. What did I do then? I petitioned both the Hoya Battalion military staff and a Colonel from DODMERB (Department of Defense Medical Evaluation and Review Board) to allow me to at least participate in the ROTC program, sans a scholarship. I was denied. Currently, I am a student at Northeastern University. During Orientation I sought out the ROTC office and inquired if I could participate voluntarily. I was denied. Notice, though, that I still pursued military service/ROTC WITHOUT a greatly reduced tuition rate. And even the salary for 2nd Lieutenants is less than someone like I could command in the private sector immediately after graduation. Were I not graced enough to attend college I would probably have enlisted in the Army. I truly feel a deep love of America, and, as I believe I have demonstrated, would serve purely for the sake of serving my country.

My father served 21 years, most willingly. Initially he joined because ROTC paid for school, but after a year or so he said it morphed into a sense of civic duty and patriotism (military service is certainly not the only means of exhibiting patriotism). My friend from the neighborhood enlisted in the marines because he wanted to 'toughen up' and also show some pride about being an American. I know many others who have served in the military, for various reasons, many of which are selfless and some of which are selfish. What this boils down to is that neither you nor anyone else can truly speak for those serving in the military or those who would wish to, about why they are serving. Do not for one second demonize those in the military based on their initial intentions for joining. Rather, demonize those who have committed misdeeds (Abu Gharib, cough cough).

Another point, no one in the military that I know asks for people to support them and wave the flag. What makes it worthwhile, when it does occur, is that certainly people that they have sworn to protect (and let's not protract this into another just/unjust Iraq war debate, you know what I meant by that statement) willingly thank them and extol their 'selflessness.' No one, under any circumstance, should be forced or coerced into thanking our military personnel. That epitomizes everything that America and the Bill of Rights is not.

Why would everybody assume that they were in the SS? Both of them were in the Wehrmacht, one of them doing the whole "tour", starting in Austria, transfered to Belgium and Holland, then to the Russian front and he found himself in Yugoslavia at the end of the war. He had actually emigrated to the States in the early 30's, but returned because he wanted to be part of what he obviously saw as great events in his home country.

The other one fought at the Eastern Front in the last two years of the war. He is a staunch Catholic and always believed that the war and everything that was in any way connected to Hitler and his ideologies was wrong, yet he "did as he was told".

Both of them recounted that it wasn't only the SS that commited war crimes and rounded up civilians. In the first years in Poland an Russia and during the last months, the Wehrmacht even carried out executions. Both knew that what they did was wrong, but neither of them had the courage to raise a finger against it. And try as I might, I can't find an excuse for that.
So, the fact that they were soldiers and took the easy way lost them a good deal of my respect.

I don't pressume that today's armies are in any way comparable, but I still don't find a reason to respect soldiers more than I would a cleaning woman, a dustman or a nurse.

Ah. Thank you for that elaboration, as it appears what I said was a moot point. Yes I know that some of the Wermarcht engaged in those activities, but I was more so referring to the actual soldiers who fought enemy combatants and did not murder civilians.

You are right, you cannot excuse murder and genocide with cowardice. Ever.
And most soldiers I know don't seek public praise, at least openly. Most, if you thank them for their service as I have encountered numerous times, will quietly smile, nod, and say thank you. But they do not ask for it. So, I agree with you about not finding a reason to respect them over civilians purely because of the nature of their job. It's a personal, conscious decision to serve in the military or to thank those that do. That's it, and all it ought to be.

To the guy in Germany whose grandfathers served in the Wehrmacht during WWII and is conflicted--- cut them a little slack-- everyone served, there was no realistic choice that they had by that time. Its easy to be brave and judgmental in hindsight.

First off, I'm a girl. And at least one of my grandfathers could simply have stayed in the US, nobody forced him to come back to Germany and join the Wehrmacht.

First off, I'm a girl. And at least one of my grandfathers could simply have stayed in the US, nobody forced him to come back to Germany and join the Wehrmacht.

LOL!

Originally Posted by Laenis
... American soilders shot dead innocent men, women and children ... all through the Vietnam war

Prove this, please.

Umm Eut, it has been proven many times over. Surely even you must know that. Soldiers themselves said it happened. News stations of the day had footage of it happening. There is no shortage of evidence.

You don't have to automatiacally honor them, that's the beauty of this county, we can think what we want to think. My step-mother is in the NAVY, my sister is in the ARMY, her husband is in the NAVY, my uncle was in the ARMY, and my great aunt was in the Coast Guard, but even with all of this millitarism that has been placed upon me, I still don't think you need to honor them just because of their occupation... you honor them for who they are.

OK, I've freaking had it with you morons here. As a subject matter expert, I FREAKING DARE you to contradict this:

Umm Eut, it has been proven many times over. Surely even you must know that. Soldiers themselves said it happened. News stations of the day had footage of it happening. There is no shortage of evidence.

TRUTH: All 95 cases (short of the My Lai Massacre, which was mishandled from the beginning) of War Crimes committed by US Troops in Vietnam were reported and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

NOW, to cover what the original thread was about:

I'm wondering if you misread why the group is requesting a national boycott of whatever company that wouldn't donate toys...might you be thinking of the TOYS FOR TOTS program, which is run by my beloved United States Marine Corps Reserve...which donates NEW, UNWRAPPED toys to UNDERPRIVILEDGED KIDS in the United States. Not to their kids, not to servicemen's kids...those kids in low-income areas that otherwise wouldn't have a great Christmas (Oh, that's right...I said Christmas...so sue me).

As for that whole rant about "I respect the troops, but not the war," that is a bunch of horse SH*T. Why? Because it confuses the hell out of the troops. They put their lives on the line for their own personal reasons, because deep down they have an ounce of patriotism and personal courage to stand up and raise their right hand...to swear an oath...

I do Solemnly Swear or Affirm, that I will support and DEFEND the Constitution of the United States of America, from ALL ENEMIES, Foreign And Domestic, and I take this oath freely with no reservations, SO HELP ME GOD!

So the rest of you freaktards need to pull your heads out of your collective first ports of defacation and smell the shit you're putting the guys overseas through. Not that I've convinced any of you, because you're head's so far up your primary port of defacation that you're choaking on your stomach...:headbang:

I know. There are plenty of other professions that are just as important and indeed, being in the military does not necessarily equal "fighting for freedom".

snip
As for that whole rant about "I respect the troops, but not the war," that is a bunch of horse SH*T. Why? Because it confuses the hell out of the troops. They put their lives on the line for their own personal reasons, because deep down they have an ounce of patriotism and personal courage to stand up and raise their right hand...to swear an oath...

snip
So we are not supposed to feel that way because it confuses some people?

If they cant understand that we support the fact that they are following orders and putting their life on the line, but we would never have preferred giving them those orders if it could be helped.

Then I think we may need to send them back to high school, maybe a bit more philosophy could help them determine the differences.

First off, I'm a girl. And at least one of my grandfathers could simply have stayed in the US, nobody forced him to come back to Germany and join the Wehrmacht.
Apologies for the misconception regarding your sex. I was entirely too casual with my assumption.

How old was your grandfather when he returned? how long had he been in the States or was he born here? were his folks the immigrants? Was there a strong cultural identity link there that motivated him (as an impressionable young man) to believe that he was "doing the right thing"?

I can only speak from the experience of a decorated Vietnam War-ear veteran when I tell you that very, very few people who go to war really want to go... most see it as their duty---to God, or country, or family; or way of life and they are willing to sacrifice their free will and independence to become part of the war machine.

Apologies for the misconception regarding your sex. I was entirely too casual with my assumption.

How old was your grandfather when he returned? how long had he been in the States or was he born here? were his folks the immigrants? Was there a strong cultural identity link there that motivated him (as an impressionable young man) to believe that he was "doing the right thing"?

I can only speak from the experience of a decorated Vietnam War-ear veteran when I tell you that very, very few people who go to war really want to go... most see it as their duty---to God, or country, or family; or way of life and they are willing to sacrifice their free will and independence to become part of the war machine.
Thats actualy the point I think origionaly
her grandfather let thoes override what was right

He was not phisicaly FORCED to join
He chose to (for whatever reasoning)

He may have feel obligated but he let that sense of obligation overwhelm was was right

Who is to say some who now join the millitary do not do the same? (not saying it is true just trying to reflect back on what the poster may have meant)

Thats actualy the point I think origionaly
her grandfather let thoes override what was right

He was not phisicaly FORCED to join
He chose to (for whatever reasoning)

He may have feel obligated but he let that sense of obligation overwhelm was was right

Who is to say some who now join the millitary do not do the same? (not saying it is true just trying to reflect back on what the poster may have meant)
but you're missing my point that at the time he may have thought he was doing the "right" thing.

but you're missing my point that at the time he may have thought he was doing the "right" thing.
Exactly why morality is subjective instead of objective

Apologies for the misconception regarding your sex. I was entirely too casual with my assumption.

How old was your grandfather when he returned? how long had he been in the States or was he born here? were his folks the immigrants? Was there a strong cultural identity link there that motivated him (as an impressionable young man) to believe that he was "doing the right thing"?

I can only speak from the experience of a decorated Vietnam War-ear veteran when I tell you that very, very few people who go to war really want to go... most see it as their duty---to God, or country, or family; or way of life and they are willing to sacrifice their free will and independence to become part of the war machine.

He was 20 when he went to the US and 25 when he returned.
Yes, he was surrendering his free will. That's exactly what I'm blaming him for.

but you're missing my point that at the time he may have thought he was doing the "right" thing.

Oh, I've no doubt he did. Which just proves that there can be no reason to justify killing another person, as it may turn out you were wrong after all.
Turns out he was about as wrong as could be...

Go to sleep on page 4, wake up on page 13. I have a lot of catching up to do so please forgive the multi-posts.

And hopefully Jolt won't decide to eat this. :P

I think that people that put themselves out there to protect society. Military, Police and fireman of the world should get a certain level of respect. I think there are alot of people that say "not me!" when it comes to these professions. These people have voluntarily risked there lives to help others. Somehow they should be viewed as the same as everyone else? I think these types of people are more important than the couch sitting do nothing.
To those who have actually risked their lives, I give the deepest respect to. My question conserns those who do not. You can be in the millitary and still be sitting on a couch, so why should I grant more respect to millitary personnel irregardless of actual duties performed, automatically? I grant deeper respect based upon the actions of that person, not due to just wearing a uniform.

To say that you dont think they need respect is really a sad telling of your own personality.
I never said that I do not give them respect because they deserve respect based upon them being human, another thinking, feeling person. I just ask why I should give them MORE than a civilian before I find out about their actions. So please do not put words into my mouth, er post.

Therefore, even though I disdain what they fight for, its only fitting that one shows the proper respect to those who chose to serve the country they reside in.
What do they fight for that is so bad?

Ok, i'm going to go out on a limb here against the "they fought for your freedom so stfu" people: at no point has any serving personnel in the millitary ever fought a war who's outcome determines the continuing democratic and "free" nature of the United States.
Fair point, but today in Iraq they are fighting for someone's freedom, which is good enough for me.

The troops are there to do something you disagree with. You can't say you support the Nazis but you don't like the Holocaust. The two belong together, and the same goes for the US Army right now and the occupation of Iraq.
Fallacy. The troops have to occupy Iraq whether they like it or not. Those are their orders.

The Nazis just wanted to execute the Holocaust, so they did.

It's a flawed comparison.

Why?

Because its right and proper to show respect to those who have served.
It doesnt matter what they did, be it combat, or pump gas for the tanks...

They served, where I would not be willing to.
Therefore, even though I disdain what they fight for, its only fitting that one shows the proper respect to those who chose to serve the country they reside in.

This doesnt mean you should blow the next serviceman you see (or woman, I suppose) but if the opportunity should arise where you have the option of showing some respect, why not do it?

Look its simple...

As humans with a sense of honor, and respect, we often feel the need to show said respect to those who earn it.
If a person who has fought in a war, on behalf of thier country, isnt deserving of respect in your eyes, that pretty much makes you a douche.

It doesnt matter what they did when they served, not everyone is cut out to go into a firefight, I myself, would probably soil myself.


To answer you other question about wether a soldier deserves more respect than say, a fireman, the answer is that they both do.
Not one more than the other.

Would you take a bullet for Bush?
I sure as hell wouldnt, but others would..kudos to them.

I probably wouldnt rush into a burning building to check for survivors, either, but its a good thing there are people who will.
Well said

It's a flawed comparison.
You know what I meant. The German Army at the time can not simply be seperated from what its country stood for and what it did.

And besides, "they were my orders" has never been a defense.

=================================

So what about conscripts. As you probably know, many young men in Germany serve 9 months in the army and then stay in the reserves until they are 40 or so.

Should we respect them all as well?

Respect simply means that you acknowledge that person to be better than yourself. And I reject that notion. Nobody is better than myself because he simply signed a contract.

As far as I go with this subject is that,
One - Military Families don't need donations of Toys
But people are out there who cry about how unpatriotic a company or person is when they do not donate those toys (or provide cash, or free dinners, etc.)

Two - Respect for them to do things what you would never do in real life, as you don't have the courage to do so
Careful, there are many reasons for not joining the millitary. They range from economic hardships to inelligibility. I take great offence at being called craven because I never joined. I didn't join because I am deaf and cannot join. Am I still a coward then?

Seven - Soldiers may not fight but they serve their country without any real questions, which may help out the country more then anything esle, more then trying to boycott or yell "Bush lied!!".
Really? I have always heard that questioning the direction of your country is real patriotism. Not my country, right or wrong, but "My country, may she always be right, and may we have the strength to change her when she is wrong!"

With a name like that you don't know what it is to be of service to people out of no personal gain?
*Snort* Do not let the handle fool you. It's for roleplay purposes only and not really reflective of my outlook on life.

Ahem:
A marine walked into a Target and gave the story of wanting Target to help w/ a donation thing or something. He asked for a monetry donation on the spot. The Target Team Members politely informed him that Target handles all charitable donations through a corporate fund, and that he'd have to contact Corporate. Well, the Marine got very irate and declared that Target was unpatriotic because it wouldn't help him. He got all his Jarhead friends to believe his version of events and thy began this e-mail rumor of Target not supporting the troops...blah, blah, blah. [sigh]

It actually wasn't the Target one, but I have recieved that as well. Not to mention that Snopes has a very long list of these suckers. It was just the one I got that triggered the question.

Respect simply means that you acknowledge that person to be better than yourself. And I reject that notion. Nobody is better than myself because he simply signed a contract.
Respect does not necessarily mean you acknowledge someone to be better than yourself. It just means you honor their choices and who they are or what they do. Status is a connotation taken with respect, and personally, I don't believe the two concepts are related. I respect civilians. I also respect fellow servicemen and women despite their country of origin. That doesn't make them any better or worse than myself.

Someone once told me that socially, members of the military are actually beneath everyday citizens. I have no objection to this mindset. In fact, I find it very humbling. It reminds me why we do what we do. It's to serve and protect the general public, both home and abroad. No one should think themself righteous for the decision to serve their fellow man, be it police, firefighters, or military.

On another note, I think people wanting to boycott companies for not donating toys is just plain stupid. We as members of the military should not expect handouts, nor should businesses suffer for their choices. It sounds to me like some over-patriotic jerk got all ticked off because someone disagreed with their line of thinking.

Is it any wonder that polls show such skepticism about the Iraq venture? Few Americans are given the favorable news from Iraq: the double-digit surge in the Iraqi economy; the steady attrition of the terrorist leadership in the Sunni triangle by brave American and, increasingly, Iraqi troops; the impressive turnout for elections, another of which is scheduled for next week; the relative peace that exists in 80 percent of the country.

But go ahead and say it's all bad - all done for the wrong reasons - nothing was gained at all - let's go ahead and say ALL Iraqis hate that we overthrew Saddam - that it was better with the Sunnis lording it over the rest of them - that nothing was or will be accomplished that is good in this world if the US does it.
My non-support for this war began before it started. It does not require I hear only bad news. In fact, I haven't been following the news all that closely. This war was unecessary, unjustified, and illegal before it began. We were told that we needed to take care of the WMDs and remove Hussein from power. Both problems have been taken care of. The war is over. We can bring everyone home. Before this shit started, folks like me wondered just what the administration was planning to do with the country once Saddam was ousted. Apparently, they had no plan beyond establishing permanent military bases.

Now, I've been hearing for about 2 years how we have to stay until we win. Win what? Occupations cannot be won. They can continue or they can end.

I don't have the time or patience to read 13 pages of this... therefore I'll just succinctly place my opinion here.

To start, I'll preface this by saying I AM DAMNED BIASED. My mother served the United States Army and later the Air Force from 1972-2002. She had given 30 years of her life to the United States and continues to do so today as a civilian. She has be given nearly 20 medals of distinction, yet has never served on the battlefield. She was a public affairs officer, meaning, she dealt with the media and communications. She was also one of the major directors of military communications in Europe for the United States. Who is to say that what she did wasn't important? Her role in international and intramilitary communications had her in a role of diplomacy. Her actions influenced the American military relationship with that of the German, Belgian, French, British, and other military forces. That is a pivotal role, one that was supported by her staff of 100. Aren't these men and women also important?

She never blew anything up. She never fired a gun with intent to kill. She still gave 30 years of her life to defending the American values and notion of freedom and frankly isn't that enough? I'm not saying that all service to the military is equal... many people fall into military careers because they have nothing else to do, but many, like my mother, CHOOSE to serve the nation. They CHOOSE to forfeit a few of the freedoms they are trying to protect (you go where the military says, follow restrictive guidelines, and often forfeit the happiness of your families by having to move every 2-4 years). Without the desk jobs, the media workers, the secretarial positions, there would be no soldiers to fight, and vice-versa.

Rant over.

Maybe we should just go back to this. And the thing that makes this better than anything the Americans do, fail to do, or do wrong, is that it will be done in secret, where we won't have to confront it or even discuss it. In our homes in the West, we can live comfortable lives and never know what horrors are perpetrated.

http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=uri:2005-12-05T170552Z_01_KWA483299_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-SADDAM-TRIAL.xml&pageNumber=1&summit=

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4718999.stm

*Snort* Do not let the handle fool you. It's for roleplay purposes only and not really reflective of my outlook on life.



It actually wasn't the Target one, but I have recieved that as well. Not to mention that Snopes has a very long list of these suckers. It was just the one I got that triggered the question.

Still, it's like someone having UNSpacy as their name. I think your name should reflect your personal views. As for RP, isn't that what NERV and the SPACY are about?

I want YOU for the UN Spacy!
Lynn-Minmay

Now, I've been hearing for about 2 years how we have to stay until we win. Win what? Occupations cannot be won. They can continue or they can end.
Actually, yes they can be won.

Look at Germany and Japan.

Speaking as a veteran, I didn't find it insulting at all.

I do find Murtha, Pelosi, and Reid insulting beyond all possible comprehension. Every time they open their mouth about Iraq.
Tell me something Murtha said that you find insulting.

Look at Germany and Japan.
I just find the differences too great. Germans (and I suppose the Japanese too, but NERVUN would know more about that) felt that they had been defeated.
They had started the war, and they lost it fair and square. That does a lot for the mindset already. Most Iraqis never really identified with Saddam's regime, to them this is not a defeat - but a badly handled liberation.
Then there is significant resistance, from inside and out, in Iraq. Say what you will, but it was never that serious in Germany, and AFAIK the continued fighting with the Japanese didn't occur on the actual mainland, but on islands missed by the US on the way.

Until we actually get some sort of strategy presented by the White House, I find it difficult to imagine what exactly a victory would be in Iraq.

Militaries exist by grace of our desire to go into wars. They are tools of the nations for domination, or defence against domination. Yet, equally, they do not drive the economy. They merely protect the country against potential threats. The economy provides the drive for the country to actually operate. So then, should we begin honouring business people for providing employment to citizens? Should we honour doctors for saving lives? Should we pay our due to lawyers for working the legal system? Soldiers are not above us. They are humans, just like us. They deserve no special respect. Fighting in a war is their job. If you are conscribed, you should be compensated. If you are paid to do it, well you already receive more than enough. Armies should not be states within states. A General may be worthy of honour if (s)he proves themself to be a hero. Automatic honour is not something they should be given though.

I don't have the time or patience to read 13 pages of this... therefore I'll just succinctly place my opinion here.

To start, I'll preface this by saying I AM DAMNED BIASED. My mother served the United States Army and later the Air Force from 1972-2002. She had given 30 years of her life to the United States and continues to do so today as a civilian. She has be given nearly 20 medals of distinction, yet has never served on the battlefield. She was a public affairs officer, meaning, she dealt with the media and communications. She was also one of the major directors of military communications in Europe for the United States. Who is to say that what she did wasn't important? Her role in international and intramilitary communications had her in a role of diplomacy. Her actions influenced the American military relationship with that of the German, Belgian, French, British, and other military forces. That is a pivotal role, one that was supported by her staff of 100. Aren't these men and women also important?

She never blew anything up. She never fired a gun with intent to kill. She still gave 30 years of her life to defending the American values and notion of freedom and frankly isn't that enough? I'm not saying that all service to the military is equal... many people fall into military careers because they have nothing else to do, but many, like my mother, CHOOSE to serve the nation. They CHOOSE to forfeit a few of the freedoms they are trying to protect (you go where the military says, follow restrictive guidelines, and often forfeit the happiness of your families by having to move every 2-4 years). Without the desk jobs, the media workers, the secretarial positions, there would be no soldiers to fight, and vice-versa.

Rant over.Your mother is a life-long tax-eating propagandist. This warrants little respect from me. But she is your mother, and I'm sure she's very nice.

Actually, yes they can be won.

Look at Germany and Japan.Is that how success is defined? - When the occupied stop resisting? It's highly unlikely that this will occur in Iraq.

Your mother is a life-long tax-eating propagandist. This warrants little respect from me. But she is your mother, and I'm sure she's very nice.

Personal jeering aside, a shot at my mother is the best you can come up with?

I think it goes to show a lack of understanding of the topic.

Is that how success is defined? - When the occupied stop resisting? It's highly unlikely that this will occur in Iraq.

It depends on where in Iraq.

The Kurds aren't fighting us, if you've noticed.

The Shiites seem to have stopped fighting us (they are getting the lion's share of political power.

Inside the Sunni triangle is where we have trouble, and half the Sunnis want the insurgency to stop so the US will go away. They are turning the others in (there is the recent Katushya rocket attack that was foiled because Iraqis turned them in). There's even been a meeting between the senior Sunni leaders in Anbar Province (the most troubled place) and the Marines - and the senior Sunni leaders agreed that the best way to get the US to go home is to stop attacking the US soldiers.

I was in combat as an infantryman. I would say that I could not have been on the front line if there weren't support troops in the rear. In fact, my job would have been impossible.
Including officer in charge of PR? Rec officer? Officer's club officer? Nursery officer (Ok, that I can see, anyone who will tackel 15 or so young children DESERVES rewards ;) ).

Sure, the rear echelon is full of slackers - but aside from playing their PS2s, they do some valuable work. And in places like Iraq, it's the support troops who are taking the brunt of casualties because they are far easier for insurgents to attack. In places where there are no front lines, and the support troops are lightly armed and armored, it's just as dangerous for them, if not more so.
For them that actually come under fire, I have no problems respecting. But again, the feeling seems to be that you have give respect and honors above all others to ANYONE in (or was in) uniform, regardless of what they actually did. Support troops who came under attack? I can and will. Support troops who spent their 6 years in the US and never left it... well... that's harder to swallow.

Besides, no one wants a mob of rowdy soldiers messing up the peace and quiet of everyone else in heaven! :D
That's why they made Valhalla. ;)

I just find the differences too great. Germans (and I suppose the Japanese too, but NERVUN would know more about that) felt that they had been defeated.

That's the problem with the modern warfare the US wages against conventional forces. You blow away the military, but it's over so quickly the civilians don't really think they were "defeated".

In a large sense, you only had to "defeat" the Sunnis. The Kurds already like us, and the Shiites like anything that involves the Sunnis being kicked.

So, in hindsight, we should have caused massive civilian casualties from the air, and laid waste to most of the Sunni triangle, and killed at least a million people by bombing them at night - then took over. They would have felt defeated then, the few survivors standing in the ruins of their cities, while the Kurds and Shiites rejoiced.

Don't take me wrong, but wouldn't that piss them off even more?

Also, Non-violent Adults, just because you believe the military is a bunch of hokey and the are secretly trying to control your life, blah, blah, blah, doesn't make his mom a "propagandist". Thank you.

NOW, to cover what the original thread was about:

I'm wondering if you misread why the group is requesting a national boycott of whatever company that wouldn't donate toys...might you be thinking of the TOYS FOR TOTS program, which is run by my beloved United States Marine Corps Reserve...which donates NEW, UNWRAPPED toys to UNDERPRIVILEDGED KIDS in the United States. Not to their kids, not to servicemen's kids...those kids in low-income areas that otherwise wouldn't have a great Christmas (Oh, that's right...I said Christmas...so sue me).
No, this was not Toys for Tots, this was for service personnel's children. And it is not the only case of this. Snopes has collected a lot of them. Even so, if a store refuses to donate to Toys for Tots, why does that make them unpatriotic?

So the rest of you freaktards need to pull your heads out of your collective first ports of defacation and smell the shit you're putting the guys overseas through. Not that I've convinced any of you, because you're head's so far up your primary port of defacation that you're choaking on your stomach...:headbang:
Nice flame.

Personal jeering aside, a shot at my mother is the best you can come up with?

I think it goes to show a lack of understanding of the topic.
What? You apparently contend that your mother, who has stayed far away from combat, is just as deserving of respect as tax-eating killers, because media relations is just as important. I just wanted to say that I don't think she deserves my respect for that. But I'm sure she deserves respect for other reasons. She's a human being and mother.

Still, it's like someone having UNSpacy as their name. I think your name should reflect your personal views. As for RP, isn't that what NERV and the SPACY are about?
Actually NERVUN wasn't supposed to be the nation I was going to use to post int he forums. However, do to not paying attention, I kept forgetting to logout of NERVUN before posting to general. By the time I figured out how to get my real primary nation to work, I had already gotten a good post count so...

Besides, me, being me, means that while I reject parts of NERV, others are well in line with my outlook on the world.

I guess I'm allowed to be OT in my own thread. ;)

I want YOU for the UN Spacy!
Lynn-Minmay
*Runs away screaming in terror. Returns with an Evangelion to squish Minmie and AT Field her out of existance* I will NEVER listen to My Boyfriend's a Pilot EVER AGAIN!!!!

Prove this, please.Umm Eut, it has been proven many times over. Surely even you must know that. Soldiers themselves said it happened. News stations of the day had footage of it happening. There is no shortage of evidence.Many personal accounts testify that some soilders used to go on what were known as 'Turkey shoots', where they would shoot at random Vietnamese from helicopters. Others talked of the general disrespect for Vietnamese life - such as referring to insects as gooks and not caring whether who they shot were Vietcong or not. One man said his group used to say "If it's yellow, shoot it".

The fact that American soilders performed many atrocities in Vietnam is well known - I studied it at GCSE for a year, and got an A in my final exam. The only question is how widespread it is - after all, it could have just being a rare mindset that only cropped up in some groups, and was not at all present in others, which seems probable to me.Question for Laenis...what is GCSE ?

General Secondary Certificate of Education. Its the equivalent of your SAT Is. Advanced Subsidiary Level and Advanced Level (AS and A Levels) are the equivalent of the SAT II, if not some what higher in their difficulty. You can get Advanced Placement with A levels (basically the AS plus the A Level form the whole A level). Its the British system.

Actually NERVUN wasn't supposed to be the nation I was going to use to post int he forums. However, do to not paying attention, I kept forgetting to logout of NERVUN before posting to general. By the time I figured out how to get my real primary nation to work, I had already gotten a good post count so...

Besides, me, being me, means that while I reject parts of NERV, others are well in line with my outlook on the world.

I guess I'm allowed to be OT in my own thread. ;)


*Runs away screaming in terror. Returns with an Evangelion to squish Minmie and AT Field her out of existance* I will NEVER listen to My Boyfriend's a Pilot EVER AGAIN!!!!

Hey! Macross & Robotech are classics! Rick Hunter/Hikaru is a much better figure than Shinji, except he let's himself get turned to putty whenever Minmei/Minmay is around!
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Stage lights flashing,
The feeling's smashing.
My heart and soul belong to you.
And I'm here now, singing.
All bells are ringing.
My dream has finally come true.

Stage fright, go away,
This is my big day.
This is my time to be a star!
And the thrill that I feel
Is really unreal.
I can't believe I've come this far!
This is my time to be a star!

God's in his heaven; All's right with the world.

They would have felt defeated then, the few survivors standing in the ruins of their cities, while the Kurds and Shiites rejoiced.
No, that would have made them even angrier (and you just lost another few points in my "respect-rankings" - Veteran or not).

You see, the governments of Germany and Japan were linked with their peoples. They were, in a sense, at one with the nation. The Nazis hadn't been defeated, Germany had been. And considering the mind state at the time...Germany was "us".

Saddam, or indeed almost any other "rogue state" does not have that connection.

Maybe Iran, and maybe North Korea - time will unfortunately tell.