Soldier Support

[Sister Fracas 5]

wouldn't you agree that it takes a pompous a$$ to turn a thread showing support for those people defending people's rights and dieing in the process, into a political or religious debate?

*shrug* see it how you'd like...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

wouldn't you agree that it takes a pompous a$$ to turn a thread showing support for those people defending people's rights and dieing in the process, into a political or religious debate?

Is it wrong to point out the fallacy of the very premise, though?

Most soldiers do no such thing as defending people's rights.

[pedroh 21]

well.. technically... saddam has never threatened American rights.. while he was in his palace beheading people and what not.. I think people in US was still makin porn movies, drinking Jack Daniels and watching girls in miniskirts... so.. I can't see any pompous azz around here.. we are all criticizin the idiotic reasons the govt made to sent soldiers.. not the soldiers duty and or their integrity

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

well.. technically... saddam has never threatened American rights..

I wasn't even talking about Saddam, the US military, the Iraq war or anything along those lines.

It's simple: Point out a soldier of an African country that actually defends people's rights and freedoms - okay, maybe you'd find a few in South Africa but you get my point. How about the military of one Kim Jong Il in North Korea? Or the Chinese military? The armed forces in the broader Middle East? Many a Latin American soldier. Belorus? Russia? They're all defending people's rights and freedoms? Really? Or are they actually tools to oppress people's rights? I'd say they're the latter. And they're the majority among the men and women in uniform across the globe.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

well.. technically... saddam has never threatened American rights..

I wasn't even talking about Saddam, the US military, the Iraq war or anything along those lines.

It's simple: Point out a soldier of an African country that actually defends people's rights and freedoms - okay, maybe you'd find a few in South Africa but you get my point. How about the military of one Kim Jong Il in North Korea? Or the Chinese military? The armed forces in the broader Middle East? Many a Latin American soldier. Belorus? Russia? They're all defending people's rights and freedoms? Really? Or are they actually tools to oppress people's rights? I'd say they're the latter. And they're the majority among the men and women in uniform across the globe.

That's a good point. Yet strangely we rarely consider that argument when we talk about our own soldiers and military personnel. While there is clearly a big difference between the soldiers upholding a dictatorial regime and the armed forces of Europe and the US, I think that people have a generally rose-tinted and unrealistic view of the military, that puts notions of patriotism and "doing one's duty" ahead of individual conscience.

People aren't robots - the Nazi SS (a very extreme example) were found legally responsible for their actions in WW2. Simply saying you're "following orders" or "doing your duty" doesn't divorce you from the moral implications of taking part in a conflict that is variously immoral and illegal.

What constitutes an immoral or illegal war? I guess that's really up to the conscience of the individual - but its certainly true to say that most people you ask will cite WW2 as the war that needed to be fought, as opposed to the likes of Vietnam and Iraq, which have, and are morally controversial at best.

Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to discredit the efforts of the troops who are working hard to facilitate the reconstruction of Iraq. What I'm saying is that the act of taking part in that conflict makes them an accessory to the questionable agenda and policy-making that brought it about.

That makes it very hard for many people to support the troops - at what point does supporting the troops become become separate to the overall context of the conflict in which they are employed? The troops are part of the conflict, and therefore part of the problem (regardless of the good works they are doing).

Simply saying that our troops are "fighting to preserve our freedoms" is a simplification that ignores the very real criticisms that have been levelled at the current administration for its foreign policy in the middle-east.

Its an issue of perception I suppose - and extension of the idea that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. The military is perceived in much the same way. Who's to say that the soldiers in Saddam-era Iraq didn't have a sense of duty or a moral sense of right and wrong? Who's to say that there weren't soldiers in Saddam's army who had serious (secret) reservations about Saddam's rule, and were loathe to murder and torture people?

The point is they are all broadly characterised by how they were used by their government - is it then unreasonable to consider the view that our own troops are viewed in much the same way? The majority are tarnished by the reputation of the few bad apples, but even that does not detract from the idea that none of them should have be there in the first place.

Its just unfortunate that the people who start wars are often not the ones who fight and die in them.

[Welshcookie 17]

Hmmm....I find myself saddened by this thread....maybe its because I was raised in a military family and am now with someone serving in the military, maybe we will have a more 'ethical' conflict one day and y'all can feel better about your soldiers again.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hmmm....I find myself saddened by this thread....maybe its because I was raised in a military family and am now with someone serving in the military, maybe we will have a more 'ethical' conflict one day and y'all can feel better about your soldiers again.

How about now wars at all? That'd suit me fine.

I just think that if you join the armed forces you must know, (at least to some degree) that you will be perceived to be an extension of government policy. If that policy is unpopular or ethically questionable - it follows that the institution that you represent will be coloured by that. Can it really be held separate to the public debate about those issues? I'm honestly not sure.

[Welshcookie 17]

Hmmm....I find myself saddened by this thread....maybe its because I was raised in a military family and am now with someone serving in the military, maybe we will have a more 'ethical' conflict one day and y'all can feel better about your soldiers again.

How about now wars at all? That'd suit me fine.

I just think that if you join the armed forces you must know, (at least to some degree) that you will be perceived to be an extension of government policy. If that policy is unpopular or ethically questionable - it follows that the institution that you represent will be coloured by that. Can it really be held separate to the public debate about those issues? I'm honestly not sure.

In my opinion no one hates war more than soldiers...no wars would suit me fine too....but that ain't ever going to happen.

My bloke joined the military knowing he may be involved in unpopular situations, and ones he personally might have a problem with, and that has happened. Does he b!tch about it? well the military has given him a good wage, career prospects, training, medical care, pension, travel....he sees it as giving back and doing what he is employed to do...no he doesn't....doesn't make him evil either.

Edited cos you can't say B!tch on VJ .....LOL

Edited March 29, 2006 by welshcookie

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

accidents happen. The human race is a very destructive animal. To deny this is to deny your humanity. If some creep harmed your family, would you kill him/her if you had the chance? I would.

i already answered that above, doll!

Thanks HW.

[Peggy 1]

I hate war. Thats all I have to say about that.

I am PROUD of the men and women that serve their countries.

ALL COUNTRIES

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I am PROUD of the men and women that serve their countries.

ALL COUNTRIES

All countries? Tell that to my wife who has family members that have looked at the working end of an AK-47 in the hands of one of their own soldiers. And they were and had reason to feel threatened as those very soldiers shot dead people next to them. Regardless of age and gender. Yes, they shot women and children. Their own people.

You would be proud of those soldiers, too? Really?

[ace13 0]

I am PROUD of the men and women that serve their countries.

ALL COUNTRIES

All countries? Tell that to my wife who has family members that have looked at the working end of an AK-47 in the hands of one of their own soldiers. And they were and had reason to feel threatened as those very soldiers shot dead people next to them. Regardless of age and gender. Yes, they shot women and children. Their own people.

You would be proud of those soldiers, too? Really?

Reinhard,

You just LOVE to argue. I am sure that pink roses really thinks that genocide is ok or killing of mothers and children You pick apart everyones words. She supports the troops-good for her. We have so many things to be thankful for and the troops are the ones to thank. I saw one yesterday in the mall and I am drawn to them to say "thanks".

If anyone sees a man or a woman in uniform, take time to thank them for what they do. They have chosen a selfless profession.

[Fuzzness 2]

I support the troops in Iraq in that I wish them no harm and hope they all return safely home to their families and loved ones. I do not support the reason that they are there. That is all I have to say.

[pax 0]

I think all that Reinhard is saying is that there's a huge difference between supporting a volunteer military engaged in honorable missions (or at least trying to carry out a mission that may or may not be honorable in an honorable fashion) and romanticizing the concept of the soldier such that we end up condoning or even glorifying the fact that many soldiers do not act honorably, or in the service of honorable missions.

I won't attempt to get into percentages of which soldiers are doing their jobs well and which are not. But we wouldn't think to offer respect or thanks to doctors who butcher their patients or subject them to harmful treatment just because many doctors are kind and conscientious. We certainly don't revere priests who abuse the faithful through their offices just because many other priests live up to the precepts of their faith. We shouldn't think of soldiers differently.

I do want to make it clear that many of us will never know what war is like. For that, we do have the best of soldiers to thank, and we should be careful about judging soldiers. Ewen's nephew is serving in Iraq and for that reason as well as many others, I don't wish to disparage all soldiers anymore than I would categorically and unequivocally say that they're all ethically outstanding human beings. It depends on a lot.

Edited March 29, 2006 by pax

[Fuzzness 2]

We have so many things to be thankful for and the troops are the ones to thank. I saw one yesterday in the mall and I am drawn to them to say "thanks".

If anyone sees a man or a woman in uniform, take time to thank them for what they do. They have chosen a selfless profession.

I will say thanks to a soldier. He is serving so that I don't have to. That warrants a big thank you. Other than that, what have they done for me?

Now as for WWII and Korean veterans I will always say thank you for protecting my freedom.