I am largely ambivalent to this because I think war is indeed stupid (if unnecessary), and whose you fight in them voluntarily should not be surprised with what they get. But I don't think we should disrespect them personally. But I don't hold too strong a moral conviction on this one. Referring to this thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=578433#post578433) I stumbled across some interesting points:

Those troops signed up knowing full well they could die in battle. Mourning their 'death is pathetic- they died for what THEY thought was right- not what you or anyone else thinks is right, and their deaths were certainly not 'worthless'- as they and their family define their worth to their own cause.
---------------------
We’re not talking about an army of ideologically pure demigods who are somehow going to beat the enemy with their moral stand, these are just people who are doing their jobs, and saying that mourning their deaths is pathetic is supremely callous and arrogant, in my opinion.

Then of course you have the moral outrage that comes afterwards. But it does raise a serious ethical issue. How much "respect" should we give to people who unabashedly obeyed orders they must have known were wrong (Abu Gharib, and other reported abuses) *Objective justice*, invading a country for no appropriate reason without an inkling of opposition, and then expecting us to respect them? Now I don't personally share this position, but I can understand why someone would. Is the modern military man/woman, nothing more then another alienated member of the gov't, or are they something more?

I think it has something to do with a "chain of responsibility."

• Until the world gets better, violence is a generally-accepted tool.
• We recognize the need, therefore, to provide for our defense against violence.
• Is it so tight an issue that we might spend our days distinguishing between those who enter the service for noble if misdirected reasons from those who enter the service to be professional guns? (I knew one of these in high school who received permission to leave school early one afternoon in order to enroll. He was itching to go to Iraq. Of course, the first war was over before he hit boot camp, but maybe he got his wish this time 'round.)
• Thus there enters a degree of separation 'twixt the people with the rifles and the people who order them around.
• The President lied to the American people, the world, and also his soldiers before he sent them to Iraq.

These things present a large number of conflicts, but none so great as to override my general sentiment: "Thank you for going. I didn't want you to go in the first place. I'm sorry it turned out this way. Have peace, at last, please."

Imagine if Abu Ghraib had gotten so out of hand that one day annhilation occurred. And then we bring back dozens of bodies and start investigating what happened. Imagine that only then does the leadership and public start to get a sense of what was going on inside. If we were to honor our criminal dead alongside those who went because it was the job they signed on for--if we honor our evil among our naîvete and nobility ... then, I think, the question of whether or not to honor the dead soldeir comes into play.

But living soldiers ... we can still measure them by who they are and what they choose to stand for. Even I had soldier fantasies when I was younger, but I consider the basis of those aspirations to be falsehoods.

In my lifetime, it has been considered "rude" to find atrocities atrocious. I think this diminishes the soldier.

None of it explains Vietnam, though. They should have been carving the political establishment to pieces instead of spitting on soldiers. Seems rather ... misdirected.

I do think soldiers should be disrespected. They volunteered without any guarantee that they’d be used only for defense. So they share the blame when it’s offense. There are degrees of disrespect deserved depending on circumstances.

How much "respect" should we give to people who unabashedly obeyed orders they must have known were wrong (Abu Gharib, and other reported abuses) *Objective justice*, invading a country for no appropriate reason without an inkling of opposition, and then expecting us to respect them?

Sounds awfully familiar from a history class I took...oh yea, the NAZIS...what'd we do with them anyway? OH YEA, they're war criminals now....I think we can all see where this is going...

I do think soldiers should be disrespected. They volunteered without any guarantee that they’d be used only for defense. So they share the blame when it’s offense. There are degrees of disrespect deserved depending on circumstances.

So should the ones stupid enough to think that they're only there for defense (that is, they thing that preemption is a solely defensive action) only be held in contempt for being stupid and not for choosing to be soldiers? :)

What about medics and other non-combatant soldiers?

Why would anyone want to respect someone whose job it is to kill people?

Though they are the instrument through which this administration has bought misfortune and shame not just to Iraq, but to our own nation, I don't think it would be fair to say they are worthy of contempt.

For the most part these are just people like us, some joined the Army to get money for college, others are idealists, and signed on with a misguided sense of obligation to do the right thing. These are not condemnable traits. They did sign on to follow orders, and be the pawns of our president, but at the same time they were full of faith that they would only be ordered to do the right things. Any failure you may wish to attribute to them should be reserved for Bush or Rumsfeld, the men giving the orders (this applies mostly in the broader sense of going to Iraq; I don't mean to imply that any individual act by a soldier is Bush's sin as well).

It may be true that they never needed to be there in the first place, however they are now doing a job that needs to be done. Iraq is a mess because of Bush, that can't be changed, but these people are going to be instrumental in setting things straight, and hopefully restoring some sort of order, and sustainable system in Iraq.

As for giving them our respect, I can understand how you might be hesitant. Just try to keep in mind that these men and women are staying loyal to a promise they made, and at least they have a noble pretext to fool themselves with.

So should the ones stupid enough to think that they're only there for defense (that is, they thing that preemption is a solely defensive action) only be held in contempt for being stupid and not for choosing to be soldiers? :)

Only if they’re mentally disabled. I doubt there are many Forrest Gumps there. Otherwise the blame they share is greater.

What about medics and other non-combatant soldiers?

If they refused to go, the war couldn’t happen. So they share the blame too.

Why would anyone want to respect someone whose job it is to kill people?

Becomes killing is sometimes necessary to minimize casualties. If someone is about to throw a Molotov cocktail into a crowd and the only reasonable chance you have to stop it is to kill the thrower, you deserve respect for the killing.

They did sign on to follow orders, and be the pawns of our president, but at the same time they were full of faith that they would only be ordered to do the right things.

If their faith is misguided that’s their fault. Faith is not an excuse. They should have refused an order to offend.

It may be true that they never needed to be there in the first place, however they are now doing a job that needs to be done. Iraq is a mess because of Bush, that can't be changed, but these people are going to be instrumental in setting things straight, and hopefully restoring some sort of order, and sustainable system in Iraq.

The job does not need to get done, nor are they setting things straight. They are engaged in creating a new dictatorship in Iraq. Any democracy will be nominal. The soldiers are helping the US build 14 military bases and facilities for a staff of 4,000 Americans who, led by the US president, will be the true rulers of Iraq. The Iraqi government will be subservient to the US by force if necessary. And of course the US will still control the oil.

As for giving them our respect, I can understand how you might be hesitant. Just try to keep in mind that these men and women are staying loyal to a promise they made, and at least they have a noble pretext to fool themselves with.

Loyalty is not an excuse.

Only if they’re mentally disabled. I doubt there are many Forrest Gumps there. Otherwise the blame they share is greater.

heh, I can agree with that.

If they refused to go, the war couldn’t happen. So they share the blame too.

Like that would stop the war...it'd just make it more bloody I think.

For the most part these are just people like us, some joined the Army to get money for college, others are idealists, and signed on with a misguided sense of obligation to do the right thing. These are not condemnable traits
In reality a large percentage of soldiers signed up to 'kill towel heads', pure and simply. I'm not saying that to slander them, its the honest truth. People I know that joined the army were excited over that prospect, thats why they joined, they hoped to get that opportunity.
I wouldn't say all soldiers are like this or anything close to all but a lot more than we would like to think, and probably the majority.
Something people who join science forums don't seem to realise is many people enjoy violence. Most people are 'bummed' that the law demands they can't kill someone.
When I say this I am talking about nearly every male between the ages of 12 and 40 that I know. Most everyone i know well admits they want to kill someone before they die. Most or all almost certainly will not, but still.
I guarantee most soldiers want to kill someone, they simply would not have joined if that wasn't the case. Some might be guilty of this pleasure and refuse to admit it but then many of them aren't ashamed. As I have said all the people I know that joined the military were openly 'pumped' about the prospect of shooting someone.

I believe that. Many were practicing with simulators (violent video games) for years.

I would say that most soldiers that I know have older family members that are or were in the service. It is a tradition in some families that you do your patriotic chore of serving your country. If you believe in a representative democracy then you accept the fact that the government will sometimes have to do unpopular things. You agree to obey the will of the people as expressed through their choice of leaders. It takes a special kind of commitment to obey orders that you do not agree with but that are lawful. I did not want to kill any one when I joined up but knew that it might be required of me. I hoped that when the time came that I would be capable of doing what was necessary. How can you not respect someone who is willing to sacrifice their freedom and maybe their lives in order to protect yours? If you feel that they are serving in an unjust war write your congressman and your senators. If enough people agree then the policies will change. That is what the soldiers are fighting for, everyone’s right to be free and to participate in the decisions that have an effect on their lives.

That is what the soldiers are fighting for, everyone’s right to be free and to participate in the decisions that have an effect on their lives.

You speak for the entirety of the American military? I find it hard to believe that even a majority of the soldiers in the military are doing it first and foremost to "protect freedom" and etc. I know some people who have joined the military, and sure, they parrot off the whole spiel about doing it for their country and etc, but usually it seems like they're doing it more because they enjoy being soldiers, they enjoy playing with the neat "toys" that most citizens never get to touch, they enjoy the feeling of power and superiority. Now, there's nothing wrong with that but I think its important to understand that a lot of soldiers aren't any more noble and much of the rest of us...

Though for people like you, laughing weasel, I do think that if you truly do believe that what you're doing is a net positive to humanity...then you're probably not of the "jerks" who're depicted above...

How can you not respect someone who is willing to sacrifice their freedom and maybe their lives in order to protect yours?

I respect you if you’re defending me. If you’re on offense or killing/endangering people haphazardly then you don’t deserve my respect. The will of the people is irrelevant. They will have you kill all day long to get what they want. To earn my respect it is incumbent upon you to hurt others only when it’s truly necessary for defense.

Then vote in leaders who are worth the time of day. Let your legislators know your feelings before the soldiers are on the way. I believe that this war was necessary to show that America is still capable of defending her national interest. if we had only wanted the oil in Iraq we could have just eased off the sanctions which France and Russia were in favor of any way and then we would not have had to spend over a hundred billion dollars fighting this war and Hussein would still be in power and the agubu torture chambers would still be operating . Well we'll shut them down as soon as we're through with them. Why do liberals always want to blame someone else and take shortcuts across the system. It would scare me if the military just decided that it could do whatever it wanted to and started to ignore the orders that it was issued. Is that what you are asking the soldiers to do? That is not a wise policy to institute it leads to martial law and coup d'états.

What national interest? The legislators already know the public’s feeling. Whatever the legislators do is at the behest of the people by definition. That’s how democracy works. The people have spoken and whether through ignorance or greed or whatever, the majority of the public wants war. Offensive war. If you want to follow the public’s whim, go ahead. You just won’t get my respect. Maybe you can do without it. That’s your choice. Or you can convince me that the war is defensive.

Why do liberals always want to blame someone else and take shortcuts across the system.

Because the system is set up in such a way, institutionalized in such a way, that unless shortcuts are taken significant progress is unlikely. There are times when a person has to take a stand against the system. For example, Rosa Parks had to break the law to show that the law was unfair.

It would scare me if the military just decided that it could do whatever it wanted to and started to ignore the orders that it was issued. Is that what you are asking the soldiers to do?

This is easy. Were you ordered as a soldier to shoot an unarmed little girl, would you do it? Let me answer in advance. No, you would not, because that’s an illegal order. Now, let me ask you differently this time: Were you ordered as a soldier to shoot an unarmed little girl, and the public had declared that legal, thus a lawful order, would you do it?

Now what is the difference between that order and an order to fight in an offensive but legal war wherein little girls will surely be shot?

That is not a wise policy to institute it leads to martial law and coup d'états.

It does not lead to that when everyone makes the choices that are obviously right for they themselves.

I would not shoot a little kid unless the individual pointed a weapon at me and I would probably still risk my life by trying not to kill the idiot. If I decided that this war was unjustified then I would terminate my career and service to the country by not going. I do believe that this war is both legal and justified. Not for the reasons that bush uses but for the simple reason that if you are running training camps for people to teach them to be more effective at fighting Americans then you are attacking America and can hardly get mad when we fight back.

Good answer. Except... Iraq had no such training camps. Now what?

zanket.. first of all.. there is a HUUUGE difference between an oder to shoot an unarmed little girl and going to war.

secondly... if we lived in a world where everyone made decisions that are "obviously" right for themselves, then it would be far worse than any democracy, or whatever your form of ideal government is.

i'm not stating any new points in this post. i'm just pointing out the inconsistency in your arguments. additionally, do you have any ideas for improvement? once you point out a fault, perhaps you would care to propose a solution that will better accomplish the goal?

Not for the reasons that bush uses but for the simple reason that if you are running training camps for people to teach them to be more effective at fighting Americans then you are attacking America and can hardly get mad when we fight back.

...

So the war is just but the premises are incorrect to you?

So if Bush had said "we're going into Iraq to get all of our oil that's under their sand." You'd have still gone because the leadership in Iraq hates America and wants you, and I, and everyone else dead?

Your argument above seems to imply that.

zanket.. first of all.. there is a HUUUGE difference between an oder to shoot an unarmed little girl and going to war.

Like what? I’m talking about offensive war here. Unarmed little girls get shot for an unfair reason in both cases.

secondly... if we lived in a world where everyone made decisions that are "obviously" right for themselves, then it would be far worse than any democracy, or whatever your form of ideal government is.

No, you’d have the best possible civilization. Democracy was created from people’s desire to have the right to choose for themselves rather than being told what to do and even what to think by a monarch, dictator, or church. Should Rosa Parks have continued to sit at the back of the bus?

Now, if everyone did this, would we have anarchy? No, because the democracy we have is already a result of people’s individual choices. The problem with democracy is that sometimes the majority steamrolls over the minority. Like how whites held down the blacks. What took civil rights so long was that blacks did not demand their own choice en masse, so individuals got beaten and that cowed the rest. Once most of them got fed up with that, civil rights were quickly a reality. Now we have an ongoing situation where soldiers who volunteered to do good and then required to do bad. The ones who care are afraid to stand up for themselves, fearing retaliation that the system will mete on them. But if they all stood up, the system would change in a hurry and offensive war would no longer be possible for a selfish majority and their representatives. Bottom line is, people should always refuse to be someone else’s pawn. Soldiers, when they enlist, should demand that they be allowed to quit without penalty.

i'm not stating any new points in this post. i'm just pointing out the inconsistency in your arguments. additionally, do you have any ideas for improvement? once you point out a fault, perhaps you would care to propose a solution that will better accomplish the goal?

I’ve got a million of ‘em. State a goal.

zanket..

i disagree with your version of democracy. i don't think that would work. there needs to be a balance between the will of the majority and the rights of the minority. absolutely agree that the tendency is for the majority to steamroll the minority. but the way to protect that is through a system of laws and the government. if you don't have anything to balance out the people's individual right to choose for themselves then democracy will not be able to exist. what's the term..?? tyranny of the majority if i remember right. I could buy your idea of people making decisions for themselves, if you add in there.. making decisions that are best for themselves and the society. in my opinion, self-interest, or making decisions best for self, will not result in a democracy you speak of.

additionally, although we are a democratic society, our military is not democratic because it would not work. you're gonna make me dig up my sources for that statement aren't you ? :) it'll take me a while, it's been some time ago.. but continuing.. there is a trust and a responsibility in the military forces that is necessary, and which would not exist if people were able to quit as easily as you describe. if a unit is preparing to leave to go to war, and all of a sudden a number of people quit because they do not belive in the cause or any other reason (and understand that there would probably be many not so just reasons, like not wanting to be separated from family, or not feeling like it, finishing school, or anything else) then the unit becomes inefective and cannot accomplish the mission. you'd probably like that, cause then, according to you, that would be the voice of the people and so on and so forth. however, the average person is not very familiar with all the issues involved in making a decision of strategic importance. at a particular time when you are told to go, you go because it is your job, that is what is expected from you, and that is what the society expects from you. everyone eventually wonders why they are deployed or why they are fighting, but in order to be effective, in order to be capable of a defense of this nation AND its interests, the subordinates must place faith in the correctness of the decisions of their superiors. and you're right, in those soldier level decisions, where it's up to the individual to pull the trigger, or obey an illegal order, refusing can be the right thing to do. but on the level of deploying to war, or participating in a campaign, the individual soldier has incomplete information, and has to rely on his superiors to make the right decisions. so in reference to honoring the modern soldier, why not? if you don't like the war in iraq, it is the administration you have a problem with, but to condemn the individual soldier because he does not refuse to serve, i belive is unfair. the democratic society, which you are a part of, is who he serves. the only realistic way of implementing that servitude is through a chain of command led by an elected leader of this society. the individual soldier does what is expected of him, any faults on the trigger pulling level, may be his, but any faults on policy level are the failures of the administration.

you say "people should always refuse to be someone else's pawn." the military is a TOOL of our government that aids it in achieving its goals. at what point, below the policy maker level, is a member of the military not a pawn of the democracy he serves? he does what the nation thinks is best, because what he thinks is best, may not be best for the nation. it is not the soldier you have a problem with, it is the administration.

I could buy your idea of people making decisions for themselves, if you add in there.. making decisions that are best for themselves and the society.

Yes. The best decision that people can make for themselves includes society as well, for nobody is an island. That is why, for example, the majority has freely chosen to have police catch speeding drivers, even though each person in that majority knows that they themselves may receive a ticket. When people make the best choice for themselves they naturally include society. There are degrees to that though. For instance, in Italy few drivers respect the lane markings. A four-lane highway might have six lanes of traffic. Traffic gets horribly jammed of course. It’s a case of people thinking too much of themselves and not enough of everyone, to their own detriment, as least as regards driving. Still that is the best society that Italians can create.

The rest of your post is very good but faulty. Consider:

in order to be capable of a defense of this nation AND its interests, the subordinates must place faith in the correctness of the decisions of their superiors.

You say “defense.” Suppose the president comes right out and says he is going to attack another country offensively. Not defense at all he says, we need that country’s resources, pure and simple, and by golly we’re gonna kill as many of those heathens as we can while we’re at it and torture the rest. The majority is behind the president wholeheartedly and that makes the war perfectly legal. Now, should the able-minded soldier still do what he’s told?

Iraq differs little from that scenario. If a reasonable soldier were not convinced from the beginning that it was offense then he or she should be convinced by now. And ignorance is not an excuse.

and you're right, in those soldier level decisions, where it's up to the individual to pull the trigger, or obey an illegal order, refusing can be the right thing to do.

Then refusing to fight at all can be the right thing to do when the war itself is illegal. Nowadays “illegal” is a loose term isn’t it? Whatever the US majority chooses to do is legal worldwide by virtue that they can get away with it. Hence the Iraqis fighting our invasion are “insurgents.” How dare they resist our invasion? At some point the soldier (along with everyone else in society) must decide on their own what is right for them. They cannot always depend on their superiors.

I don't buy the argument that soldiers would cut & run in droves when they're really needed for defense. In WWII people did the opposite, running to enlist.

you say "people should always refuse to be someone else's pawn." the military is a TOOL of our government that aids it in achieving its goals. at what point, below the policy maker level, is a member of the military not a pawn of the democracy he serves? he does what the nation thinks is best, because what he thinks is best, may not be best for the nation. it is not the soldier you have a problem with, it is the administration.

A soldier need not be a pawn. They just agree to be one. And I have problem with them when they then hide behind that agreement, or patriotism or whatever, when they unnecessarily kill unarmed little girls (and everyone killed in an offensive war is killed unnecessarily). I also have a problem with the majority of people who led the soldier to do that. The administration is just a figurehead for the majority.

on the first point you mentioned about Italians. I just don't believe that people are capable of making every decision with the good of the society in mind. i guess we differ here on the nature of man. but it's been my experience that at one point or another a person will stop caring about the effect of their decisions on society, especially if they feel they are the minority and feel disadvantaged. additionally, is it so hard to imagine that opposing views will both claim to be best for society? that will result in conflict will it not?

about your point on offensive war, notice i emphisised "AND." what i was saying was defense of the nation and defense of the nation's interests. here is where offensive war comes into play. it is in the defense of the nation's interests. now you argue that it is for the natural resources of iraq that we are fighting, but once again, i would like to point out that the administration's claim, whether true or false (which was not verifiable at the time) was that the iraqis posed a threat to the united states because of development of WMDs and supporting terrorism. now you have a soldier, and his superiors, who by the virtue of their position have more complete knowledge of the situation, .. his superiors are telling him/her that it is time to go to war because we have been attacked by terrorists in new york, and in order to prevent that, we must attack iraq who is helping the terrorists in preparing more of these attacks. that was the knowledge the soldiers possessed at the time. why would they want to leave? after all, invading iraq was to protect the U.S. from terrorists by taking out one of their main suppliers. once again, whether that is true or not, could not have been verified at the time by the individual soldiers. the government machine was moving ahead and identified a threat and a method to eliminate it. here is my point that i brought up earlier. the administration is at fault for the war if there is anyone to blame for it. just because the trust of the soldiers was broken by those in power, does not mean that they are the ones to blame. society expects them to follow orders in order to accomplish the will of the government, which is the representative of the people. that is the system that's in place, soldiers are the executioners of the administrations will because that is the trust placed upon them. administration is responsible for making correct decisions because that is the trust placed upon it. now who failed here.. it was not the soldier. please, remember, society does not expect soldier to refuse orders to go to war, they only expect to refuse illegal orders on their own level where they have the knowledge of the situation. strategery ;) (pun intended) is at command level.

soldier's agree to be "pawns" as you put it, though i do not like the word, because that is their job. that is how the military operates. there is no free speech, no voting, no desertion. military is not a democracy. just because these people choose to defend our democracy, does not mean that within the military structure they practice it. they practice it through voting and elections in civilian world, but military could not work in the democratic way the way society works.

lastly, innocents are not killed intentionally. i agree, it is tragic, but i highly doubt that any of that is intentional. even in our own courts there is a distinction between intentional and unintential killing, murder vs. manslaughter. i assure you that soldiers do everything they can to prevent such incidents. the administration puts them in a position where they have to fight in order to survive. once the bullets start flying, soldiers are just defending themselves.

additionally, is it so hard to imagine that opposing views will both claim to be best for society? that will result in conflict will it not?

Happens continuously. The majority rules.

now you argue that it is for the natural resources of iraq that we are fighting, but once again, i would like to point out that the administration's claim, whether true or false (which was not verifiable at the time) was that the iraqis posed a threat to the united states because of development of WMDs and supporting terrorism.

That issue was a joke. It was verifiably false to any reasonable person who took a little time to investigate the issue. Here’s a history lesson: There was no evidence that he was supporting terrorism. At one time Bush directed over 1,000 CIA & NSA operatives to work full time to find some evidence so he could boost support for his war bid. They couldn’t. The US sold Iraq their WMDs; the joke was that Rumsfeld knew they had them because Rumsfeld had the receipts. The WMDs became a “threat” when Bush Sr. double-crossed Saddam on Kuwait. (Saddam had asked the US for permission to invade Kuwait because they were slant-drilling under Iraq’s oil fields and wouldn’t stop. Saddam got the green light. After he was double-crossed Saddam even worked the international circuit showing everyone the transcripts of his meeting with the US enjoy who gave him the green light.) When Saddam surrendered to Bush Sr. the destruction of WMDs became a requirement, along with reparations. During the Clinton era Saddam paid $billions in reparations to Kuwait and other surrounding countries. Why would he willingly do that if he were planning to attack the US or any of its allies with WMDs? There is no reasonable reason why he would. And a no-fly zone and sanctions that cost peanuts per decade compared to full-scale war already contained him. The threat logic reached a ridiculous extreme when Bush (through Rumsfeld) demanded that Saddam prove he had no WMDs. That is logically impossible. Making the leader of the world’s nuclear superpower illogical, making Bush more of a threat than Saddam. Unless you believe that Bush really wanted the oil. Getting back on the topic, a soldier should know the history that led to the invasion, so they can confirm that they’re being used defensively.

now you have a soldier, and his superiors, who by the virtue of their position have more complete knowledge of the situation, .. his superiors are telling him/her that it is time to go to war because we have been attacked by terrorists in new york, and in order to prevent that, we must attack iraq who is helping the terrorists in preparing more of these attacks. that was the knowledge the soldiers possessed at the time.

Only if they believe what they’re told. They should not. They should question what they’re told, especially before being shipped over, because they are a deadly weapon. It’s not like they would have had to look very hard to see that it was offense. Or they can do what they want and earn my disrespect when it’s offense.

society expects them to follow orders in order to accomplish the will of the government, which is the representative of the people. that is the system that's in place, soldiers are the executioners of the administrations will because that is the trust placed upon them.

That’s just an excuse. Again, if a soldier is human enough to be expected to know which orders are illegal (like “kill that unarmed little girl”) then they must be human enough to know whether or not the war itself is defense. If they are to be judicial in battle then I expect them to not be a mindless tool as to the war itself.

soldier's agree to be "pawns" as you put it, though i do not like the word, because that is their job. that is how the military operates. there is no free speech, no voting, no desertion. military is not a democracy.

Again, they agree to join that dictatorship. That makes them blameful for its actions.

just because these people choose to defend our democracy, does not mean that within the military structure they practice it. they practice it through voting and elections in civilian world, but military could not work in the democratic way the way society works.

No, it could. It works just fine with mercenaries, of whom there are many in Iraq on the US payroll. Mercenaries don’t care about my respect. Pay the soldier more and let those who wish to opt out of the fight leave. With higher pay you’ll still have plenty left. The beauty of this arrangement is, offensive war costs far more than defensive war.

lastly, innocents are not killed intentionally. i agree, it is tragic, but i highly doubt that any of that is intentional. even in our own courts there is a distinction between intentional and unintential killing, murder vs. manslaughter.

In our courts, when a killing occurs in the commission of a felony, it’s murder. Offensive war should be a felony in my book. Anybody killed on offense is killed intentionally.

i assure you that soldiers do everything they can to prevent such incidents.

That’s crap. Didn’t I mention in this thread about the cruise missiles launched at the sleeping neighborhoods for the teeny tiny chance of getting Saddam? Lots of soldiers eagerly participated in that (Pushing the button now, yes SIR!). Just because nobody hears the screams of the dying doesn’t mean they aren’t. Just today in the paper another wedding party is wiped out. 45 dead, more injured at whom we'll throw a few bucks and let them deal with their lifelong disabilities and inability to earn a living. Yes the idiots were firing in the air. But before the attack, soldiers visited the site and verified it was a wedding party. Likely a communications problem, but this kind of thing has happened so often, and continues to happen, that at some point you have to conclude that there is little effort to prevent needless death (I believe it’s really a cost-cutting issue; the towel-heads just aren’t worth a dime to the average American--a nickel maybe).

Your posts are great but I still disagree. We’re going in circles now. I may not post again on this topic but I'll consider whatever you do.

zanket.. i enjoyed this.. and yeah, we'll keep on going in circles because i as well disagree :) ... see you on another thread

What's going on with the modern soldier is in the minority. None of this is new, it's been around for centuries in hundreds of war but we have the 'power' of the media, so it's more publicised. In every group there are a few rotten apples, but unfortunately, soldiers are needed for the security of the country, a thing the hippies don't quite get and never would unless they lived in the real world.

Yeah!

You tell 'em, Steve-Dave!

Damn peaceniks!
So what if a few Jawas get pissed on or pointed at?
It's better than being burned alive or beheaded!

The Flemster.

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/trall/2004/trall040515.gif

Here's (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040521/D82N8R081.html) a soldier I can respect.

you all make me sick....

the USA modern trooper no mater what they do what they say need respect and to be honnored.... If we did not have them then the rest of the world would be screwed...

with out our little police force that everone hates the world would fall apart...

africa would be one big killing zone... because no one would stop them...

inda and packistan might go at it... the middle east would be one big smoking hole...

I'm sure Tiwain would be gone... maybe some other small countrys...

our friends to the south would all still be high and our friends to the north would still be drinking beer... there might be some hostile action but not sure how many...

mass ethnic killings would go on in former USSR block countrys....

the onlything keeping the world togeather is these little guys with the little red white and blue flags on there arms... do you really want to live in a world with out modern troopers?

Troop who defend I want. Those who offend I can do without; they make us less safe. Resist your patriotic urge to lump them together.

[QUOTE=shadarlocoth]you all make me sick....

the USA modern trooper no mater what they do what they say need respect and to be honnored.... If we did not have them then the rest of the world would be screwed...(DOES THIS INCLUDE THE BARBARIC TREATMENT OF PRISONERS?)

I live next to a military base, my friends and family are active military. We talk all the time about how much they hate going to the desert! I also hear so many stories about how many of their fellow soilders are complete morons!!! I respect those who are respectful. I honor the honorable. I pray for the sick and demented.

As for the keeping peace throughout the world,,,,I think you better look a little deeper then what the media tells you. Last I checked, there were still hungry citizens in our own Country that need to be fed and using our tax dollars to police the world is not helping the homefront too much! I feel sorry for the men and women in uniform who know they dont agree with our foreign policies but have to go over there anyway.

Welcome to sciforums, cyndeelouwho.

They don't have to go over there anyway. They can choose one year in jail instead. If they still choose to go then they share the blame when it's offense.

How many of you on this thread have served in the armed forces? Its a dirty job but somebodys got to do it. Remember all you liberal hand wringing pussies, if it was`nt for your forces you would`nt be here slagging off anybody. (Moderator Edit) The forces is not a job , its a way of life. I know, i did 12 years worth.You are safe in your beds at night because of your forces.Nobody attacks a strong nation. Give a bit of respect were its due.

They're called turbans, not towels. Much like we call soldiers "soldiers" and not "criminals."

Anyone who is prepared to die so that I can have a freedom of choice in my daily life instantly gets my lifelong respect and gratitude. It should be the same with the rest of you lot too.
It really is that simple.

The Flemster.

Anyone who is prepared to die so that I can have a freedom of choice in my daily life instantly gets my lifelong respect and gratitude. It should be the same with the rest of you lot too.

I agree it's quite simple. However, that hasn't happened for so long in this country that nobody should have any illusions anymore about what they're joining.

Tell me, how does a soldier gunning down the mother of small children because he decided that the unarmed woman "was in the way" protect my freedom of choice?

How do over 100,000 soldiers prosecuting a dubious war in violation of the international agreements my country made in order to protect my freedom actually protect my freedom?

(Oh, yeah ... oil prices.)

so tiassa, what about the modern soldiers in afghanistan? do they not deserve respect? then you're gonna say, but iraq is different. and then i'm gonna say, but soldiers don't get to pick where they go. the same type of people that are in iraq are also in afghanistan. yet nobody here is badmouthing them. hate the war, not the soldier.

Ask someone else. It's a straw man as far as I'm concerned. I would invite you to go back and read my prior post, and pay attention to the quoted excerpt I'm responding to.

You asked, "what about ... Afghanistan?" As compared to what? My mention of "over 100,000 soldiers," meaning Iraq?

I mean, why are you asking me?

Iraq. Afghanistan.
So what? A few trigger-happy (mainly American) troops get all excited and do a few naughty things.
What about the other side of the coin?
How about the British soldiers in Basra and other places carrying out their duties with dignity and respect for the locals?
If you don't want the Iraqis running at you, strapped to the gills with explosives, dont erect an American flag on every corner. Dont use dogs to search their houses (it's seen as very disrepsectful in their culture to be searched by a hound). Dont play American music at full volume whilst cruising around in a Hummer thinking you're John Wayne.
The Brits don't do this, hence why they're not attacked so often.
Don't get me wrong: I think every soldier out there (in the Middle East) deserves respect, weather they are being 'good' or naughty. They put their lives on the line for the rest of us.
They are prepared to die for our way of life.
For our flags and all that stands for.
And they'll do all this even for those of you that don't want them to.

THAT deserves praise.

The Flemster.

A simple question:

• Why does any discussion of honoring the soldier (or police officer, &c) come down to "what they do for us" in concept?

There is an automatic and excessive respect expected of people where soldiers and such are concerned.

But soldiers don't pick their battles, as Fallen Angel points out. Rather, they sign on for hell or high water. And when that means they're accepting the possibility of prosecuting an illegal war and orders to violate the rules of warfare to which the soldiers are trained, well ... we must consider that.

So the automatic respect really is questionable. We presume that the soldier in the box is a hero, that he died honestly. Of the thousands dead in Vietnam, for instance, nobody can expect me to believe that every one of the dead died honorably.

And while the revulsion shown our soldiers in the wake of Vietnam was inappropriate (they were conscripts), so also does our American warring culture have fits every time someone legitimately criticizes our armed forces. And instantly we're back to issues of respect and honor.

In this country, we're expected to write a blank check on dignity. The guy who comes home in a box, who was killed while committing wrong acts, is still expected to be honored. At least until the press gets hold of how he was killed, and the myth of the noble, defensive soldier is shattered.

And no. Being prepared to die for a piece of cloth does not deserve praise. That's just downright stupid. If we Americans, military and civilian alike, actually lived up to what that flag alleges to stand for, I might have a different opinion about dying for a flag.

I mean, the Nazis are reviled, but in WW2, the craziest man in the war was not Hitler, but rather a Scot who played his pipes on D-Day. For all the savagery of the Nazi machine, nobody shot the piper, in part because even a Nazi hesitated at the idea of shooting someone who was visibly insane. (Whether he was actually insane or not is its own question.) Frankly, I find that quite honorable. But it's absurd to assign any value to that honor in the face of what those armies did.

It's just that there's "honor among thieves."

And how we regard that ....

In the end, it comes down to a soldier's conduct. But the automatic respect ought to be suspended, especially considering that they volunteered.

i did not say anything about automatic respect, but what i disagree is the automatic desrespect mentioned by various posters here. as i've said here before, each soldier can be judged on decisions he makes that he has power over. but to dismiss all of them because of the war in iraq is inapropiate.

so tiassa, what about the modern soldiers in afghanistan? do they not deserve respect? then you're gonna say, but iraq is different. and then i'm gonna say, but soldiers don't get to pick where they go. the same type of people that are in iraq are also in afghanistan. yet nobody here is badmouthing them. hate the war, not the soldier.

The soldiers in Iraq are following illegal orders. Just because the prez says it's okay to steal doesn't make it legal to me. If one cop is ordered to protect the citenzry while another is ordered to fire into a crowd and does so, the second cop is still on the hook for the crime. Because the US now has the power to dictate the law worldwide, all US soldiers are heroes by definition (just as all opposing soldiers are insurgents; that is, illegal). But I won't respect them.

what about afghanistan??

Of course Afghanistan looks different because bin Laden is advertised to be there. But the US didn’t get rid of the Taliban to replace them with democracy. Afghanistan is still firmly a dictatorship, with Bush the new dictator. The warlords not only survived but thrive under Bush. And bin Laden is merely contained--not caught--until closer to election time, still able to carry out violence via messages sent by runners who pass through the porous cordon. Meanwhile Karzai, a former oil industry consultant, has given a big contract to his former employer, part of Bush Oil, to build an oil pipeline across the country. By now it should be obvious to the soldiers there that they are being used to make the rich richer. So no, neither can I respect those soldiers.

And while the revulsion shown our soldiers in the wake of Vietnam was inappropriate (they were conscripts), so also does our American warring culture have fits every time someone legitimately criticizes our armed forces.

How does being a conscript change anything? If a soldier has a choice between dropping high explosives on an elementary school or being imprisoned for disobeying an order, and chooses the former, I should give respect simply because the soldier is a conscript?

so zanket, you're saying we should not be in afghanistan then?? or is every valid reason for war going to be wrapped up in conspiracy theories? so we were wrong in getting rid of the taliban? the open supporter of the terrorists who attacked new york?

Throuhout history warriors have been a part of the countries defenses.Remember befor that young men were FORCED to go into battle or their families would be killed! Those were many years ago and even today in certain countries that type of thinking is still going on.

Today , in America, we have the freedom to choose if we want to enlist or not, which is a matter of wanting to defend ones country and a good job with many benifits. Many young people wouldn't have jobs if it weren't for the military which also helps young people in many ways other than just fighting. The military today, in America, teaches education, lets people travel , enforces discipline, and helps people in many other ways they may not have had in their economic conditions they lived in.

People in the military are not liked for some reasons by many until war is declared and they really protect a country from being taken over. Then everyone wants to be a "part" of the action and help out in any way they can. People should respect the military always, not just in wars but because they are there protecting everyone daily from harm. I salute those in the military for they are all trying to do their best for the countries they represent and honor. True, there's always going to be some in the military that "bend the rules" but then again look at who they are fighting, those people,terrorists, have no honor or codes to follow at all and will use children to kill others for them.

Every soldier when in another country should wear all the time a camera that takes a hi-resolution but low file sized picture every second. This is downloaded to headquarters every day. No one will ever do anything illegal then, it will be illegal to halt or damage this camera equipment.

Each and every order by the superior should be sound recorded and instantly transmitted without a return recorded signal it will be considered void.

Respect who serve in the country and not those involved in occupations. Its one thing to defend but to establish a military base in different parts of world, That should be considered as terrorism. May be USA want terrorist to exist and do all that in name of fight against terrorism.

Soldiers have enough crap to lunk around as it is. Your cameras would just be junked, "lost", or "malfunction" .I know. I served in the army,and thats the mind set. Would you wear one?

All cameras at sametime ?

Batteries are required for any camera, they wear out quickly so this isn't a realistic way to gain information. Soldiers go into battle against those who don't have rules or respact for the way fighting should be done. When an enemy has no rulles then you must engage them with that way of thinking do a certain degree or your military won't be able to fight on the same level as those their fighting. I said to a certain degree, not totally the same.

How does being a conscript change anything? If a soldier has a choice between dropping high explosives on an elementary school or being imprisoned for disobeying an order, and chooses the former, I should give respect simply because the soldier is a conscript?

I hold that there is a difference between the choice to join the military on any given day and the choice to join the military under duress of law.

As such, I leave broader leeway for poor judgment under duress of war. Not much, but some.

Additionally, when the war itself is unpopular ... well, holding the folks who are there under duress of law responsible for that unpopularity and making them a scapegoat seems to miss the point.

so zanket, you're saying we should not be in afghanistan then?? or is every valid reason for war going to be wrapped up in conspiracy theories? so we were wrong in getting rid of the taliban? the open supporter of the terrorists who attacked new york?

I think every dictatorship should be replaced with democracy. Not replaced with dictatorship. Otherwise New York will be attacked again.

Additionally, when the war itself is unpopular ... well, holding the folks who are there under duress of law responsible for that unpopularity and making them a scapegoat seems to miss the point.

No one forced them to drop bombs on kids. Duress of law is nothing compared to that.

Ok, first of all, when it comes to modern day military, the men and women that serve our country do so with the full knowledge they are signing up for a life of dedication and service. They are asked to do for our country things that NEED to be done and must be done to preserve the wonderful way of life that the American people seem to often take for granted. For someone to just write off all soldiers as pawns or to fault them for the decisions they have no control over is infantile and misguided.

Secondly, although the consensus now is that the president might have misled the american public about the imperativeness of the need of a war in iraq, you again cannot fault the soldiers in following orders. As stated before, there is no democracy in the military. You do what you are told to preserve order in the ranks. That is why ranks exist. If everyone "voted" about everything in the military down to the last detail nothing would EVER get done. (look at congress if you need an example!)A soldier must put his trust in his command that they are making the best decision they can based on the intelligence given to them. Humans are fallible, they make mistakes and misjudgments. Monday morning quarterbacking isnt gonna change that fact. Everything always seems crystal clear after bad things happen and you are staring at the mess of an aftermath.

As for afghanistan, fallen angel, I believe that the reason there isnt as much of an uprising about us invading Afghanistan because everyone had 9/11 to look back on and say "see? thats something that needs to be avenged!" and the majority of our allies were behind us. The point that soldiers dont choose their station, they have to go where they are told is true. The soldier shouldnt be to blame for doing his job. the whole Afghanistan vs. Iraq on a moral standpoint is beside the point.

i thought this was supposed to be a discussion of whether we should honor the modern soldier. My answer to that question is emphatically YES. the soldier goes out and does what others shy away from doing, but things that need to be done. i compare soldiers abroad to police at home. often if asked a regular citizen would flinch away from picking up a gun and going to protect other peoples rights and property. but alas, its something that must be done. If its the decisions that have been made about how the military is being used, then again, that has nothing to do with the soldier. If you have a problem with the use of the military, get off your butt, write your congressmen and senators, go vote, exercise your rights. But dont shoot the messenger. :mad:

Soldiers enforce and protect the law and america's interests, not create policies. Attack the politician's motives and decisions if you find yourself so compelled.

I can’t respect stealing, even if that is what NEEDS be done to preserve the wonderful American way of life. Faulting soldiers for dropping bombs on kids is not infantile. If I’m responsible for dropping the bomb and I see that the target is an elementary school full of kids, I don’t need to wait for Monday-morning quarterbacking. This mistake is crystal clear immediately.

The fact is that the US is the world’s bully, having killed millions of innocent people since WWII. The US continues to oppress and torture people. Your sentiment only condones and promotes what is obviously wrong by diluting it in patriotism and duty. The soldier has a brain. If they do what is obviously wrong then they deserve disrespect.

Like police, soldiers are responsible for carrying out only the orders that serve & protect the public. Those in Iraq and Afghanistan do not serve me. They offend me rather than defend me. It is obvious that they--by blindly following the orders of a person widely recognized to be a megalomaniac--make me less safe.

BTW, I don’t expect soldiers to figure this out before the facts are in. Afghanistan may have seemed a worthy war at first, but now it is a sham. Soldiers have access to the Internet and news during R&R. They can read about the overwhelming consensus condemning Bush’s foreign policy. They can read about the people the US tortured to death. Then I expect them to quit the war and serve time in prison rather than continue to execute civilians just to save their own skin.

zanket, i would like to know what soldier just goes around dropping bombs on elementary schools - really, what are you basing THAT statement on? also, the US is not the world's bully but yet the world's peacekeeper. I cant even begin to think of how many times other countries have come to us begging for us to help them in their time of need. America, like every other country has its faults, no one has figured out how to make a utopia, but why continue to criticize the same government that gives you the right to speak your mind in the first place? I would like to know what atrocities the soldiers are commiting that make you think that modern soldiers dont deserve respect? Also, i am sure you will bring up the whole prison scandal in iraq, and compared to what other countries do to people the interrogate, what was done there is lightweight. Every country does things you only think other countries do. What separates the men from the dogs are the ones that hold the truly morally wrong accountable for their actions. I am sure that if one of your family members or close friends were one of the ones directly affected by the recent conflicts you would feel differently. It seems to me you are making statements based on a point of view that is removed from the actual happenings and skewed information?

zanket, i would like to know what soldier just goes around dropping bombs on elementary schools - really, what are you basing THAT statement on?

Watch any Vietnam documentary and in a span of a few minutes you’ll see US soldiers dropping hundreds of high explosives on farming communities. Our warplanes went up and down valleys dropping bombs. The US killed an estimated 2 million civilians, so many that an accurate count is practically impossible. Such scale of death took a concerted effort by all soldiers throughout the war.

also, the US is not the world's bully but yet the world's peacekeeper.

Then why did it subvert democracy in Iran and Chile? Why did it arm both Iran and Iraq in their war? Why does it give billions annually to Israel, which uses the money to kill loads of Palestinian civilians and summarily (without compensation) bulldoze down their houses to make way for Jewish settlers? And I could go on. No, the US is demonstrably the world’s warmonger, not peacekeeper.

I cant even begin to think of how many times other countries have come to us begging for us to help them in their time of need.

Irrelevant. People go to the mob for loans even though they’re afraid of the mob.

America, like every other country has its faults, no one has figured out how to make a utopia,

Not killing millions of innocent people would be a simple start toward that.

but why continue to criticize the same government that gives you the right to speak your mind in the first place?

I should not use the right to criticize when my government is up to no good? How could I respect myself?

I would like to know what atrocities the soldiers are commiting that make you think that modern soldiers dont deserve respect?

They are creating new dictatorships in Afghanistan and Iraq. Not only will this result in untold misery, but also it foments terrorism, making me less safe.

Also, i am sure you will bring up the whole prison scandal in iraq, and compared to what other countries do to people the interrogate, what was done there is lightweight.

What other countries do is irrelevant. Scandal is glossing over the matter. We tortured people to death.

What separates the men from the dogs are the ones that hold the truly morally wrong accountable for their actions.

Only a handful of scapegoats will be held accountable for the torture. That is already apparent.

I am sure that if one of your family members or close friends were one of the ones directly affected by the recent conflicts you would feel differently.

Why would I want someone who didn’t harm me to pay for that?

It seems to me you are making statements based on a point of view that is removed from the actual happenings and skewed information?

No, my info is well supported.

This comic depicts US foreign policy in a nutshell. How can I respect the soldiers who make it possible by blindingly following orders?

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/trall/2004/trall040607.gif

zanket, Vietnam was a war fought not just by uniformed soldiers but of people in civilian clothes as well, women and children and the like. The view of people being innocent gets a bit grey when you look back at some of the things that supposed "innocents" did in the war. For instance, in a book by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman about military actions in war, told of a seemingly innocent woman standing in a field of rice, planting, and lying all around her were downed hueys. Another helo came by and noticed the downed helos and was wondering why first the woman was planting rice in the middle of an obvious battlefield, then he figured out when another helo got shot infront of him that the woman was infact signaling to the VC which the direction the helos were coming so they could shoot them down by turning in their direction when she "planted". They ended up having to bomb the field to make sure none of the other helos got shot down. That woman may have been just a citizen, but she was still a combatant.
i could go on with my examples.
i still think your facts are skewed, i am a huge history buff and cannot recall any mass murders in vietnam done by americans. maybe i am wrong, but your arguments dont seem valid to me.
maybe we simply have differing views that are too far detached from each other.

zanket, Vietnam was a war fought not just by uniformed soldiers but of people in civilian clothes as well, women and children and the like.

That’s just rationalization for killing innocents. Of course the women and children were helping the VC. That doesn’t give us license to kill the lot of them. If we do then it proves that we weren’t really there to help them. And if they were all against us, then you gotta wonder about why we were there.

i still think your facts are skewed, i am a huge history buff and cannot recall any mass murders in vietnam done by americans. maybe i am wrong, but your arguments dont seem valid to me.

Uh, 2 million civilians died. We even napalmed kids. That could not be mass murder only with intense rationalization. And if you want a mass murder that even the most hawkish American would have a hard time rationalizing, check out My Lai (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/mylai.htm), the point-blank massacre of 500 unarmed kids, women, and the elderly by US soldiers "just following orders, SIR." I fail to see how you could be a huge history buff and not know about that one. Maybe you have rose-colored glasses on?

maybe we simply have differing views that are too far detached from each other.

Yours seems basically that of the voice in the comic. That is, the US is always right no matter what it does.

The point of the civilians helping the VC is to show you that because they were helping the combatants, they themselves turn themselvs into combatants; no longer innocent. You seemed to miss that.
I am well aware of My Lai Massacre, and i am also aware of the severe mental state that most soldiers were (and some still are) that served in Vietnam. You seem determined to try and prove that the American soldier is some kind of devil out to damn the world. Humans do things that are wrong. We arent infallible.

US is not always right, i am in the belief that US should have never invaded iraq, and that this war has as much to do about showboating and politics than anything else. But the fact remains that the US DID invade, and theres really nothing we can do about that now. The original comment was about whether we should honor the modern soldier. And my point was and still is that we SHOULD. because in today's world where everyone is looking to balk the "man" and gather together in some random town square singing kum ba ya, there still exists people in this world that would rather serve the country that protects them. And i am talking of ANY modern soldier. Not just Americans.

Personally i think people have lost the pride that comes with pledging your allegience to your country. I think soldiers try and keep that alive in today's society and for that, deserve respect and honor. Alot of people owe their lives to the modern day soldier.

The point of the civilians helping the VC is to show you that because they were helping the combatants, they themselves turn themselvs into combatants; no longer innocent.

Do you think if someone attacked the US that civilians just might help US soldiers? The VC were Vietnamese and we were attacking Vietnam. The VC weren’t some invading force. The US was the invading force. We knew going in that they would all work against us. By your logic we would have to kill them all. No surprise then that that’s just what we tried to do.

I am well aware of My Lai Massacre,

Then presumably you don’t think that was mass murder. My God, what then qualifies as mass murder in your book?

and i am also aware of the severe mental state that most soldiers were (and some still are) that served in Vietnam.

Oh, I see, they were just gallant & brave soldiers having a bad day. Yep, bayoneting toddlers is stressful. Do ya think just maybe they were in that severe mental state (and some still are) because they’d been killing civilians day in & day out for their whole tour?

You seem determined to try and prove that the American soldier is some kind of devil out to damn the world.

If the shoe fits... If there is a devil then the American soldier surely does his work. Only one example more damning exists in human history that I can think of.

Humans do things that are wrong. We arent infallible.

Fallible is forgetting to pay a bill on time. Eating sandwiches while the women you shot moan in a ditch, at least until you’re done with lunch and then you laugh while you finish them off, is evil. And there’s no significant difference in my book between massacring a village with bullets versus dropping a bomb on them from a plane. Both are evil.

US is not always right, i am in the belief that US should have never invaded iraq, and that this war has as much to do about showboating and politics than anything else. But the fact remains that the US DID invade, and theres really nothing we can do about that now.

Sure we can. We can install a true democracy. We can compensate the victims and their families for our mistake; a $trillion might do it. We can help mend those we injured instead of leave them to fend for themselves. We can apologize. And finally, we can leave. But we’ll do no such things. Instead the soldiers there work to set up a new dictatorship that we will control.

The original comment was about whether we should honor the modern soldier. And my point was and still is that we SHOULD. because in today's world where everyone is looking to balk the "man" and gather together in some random town square singing kum ba ya, there still exists people in this world that would rather serve the country that protects them.

Just because I’m not firing my machine gun willy-nilly into Iraqi neighborhoods doesn’t mean I’m dancing with flowers. The soldiers there do not serve or protect me, and that should be obvious to them by now. They make me less safe and continue to willingly do so. How can I respect that?

And i am talking of ANY modern soldier. Not just Americans.

I respect soldiers, modern or not, American or not, who serve and protect.

Personally i think people have lost the pride that comes with pledging your allegience to your country.

How can I have pride for a country that murders millions of people who were no threat to it? That continues to oppress and kill civilians and steal their resources? I’d have to be brainwashed. Robotically pledging allegiance a thousand times might do it.

I think soldiers try and keep that alive in today's society and for that, deserve respect and honor.

Respect and honor don’t come with the uniform.

Alot of people owe their lives to the modern day soldier.

A lot of people owe their deaths to them too. Why not include them in your picture?

*sigh* You apparently will never see my point of view. I probably wont post on this thread again, but i have a feeling i will see you again on another post. :-P

Well, it's been a while ..

i don't have cartoons but i have this:

"I can imagine a world without war. I can imagine a world without hate. And I can imagine us attacking this world, because they'd never expect it."

Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey

zanket, it seems to me that you advocate not going through with commitments. you said that afghanistan was the right thing to do at first, but then you went and said that it is not now. and that a soldier on an observation post on a mountain somewhere, should all of the sudden say, "hey guys, uhm, you know, i did some research and we shouldn't be here, i am a concientious objector, i refuse to serve." and then as he walks away from his post, someone infiltrates the base, he gets shot, a mine is planted. once you're there you cannot just quit!!! because if you do you will die, or more probably, you will be responsible for the death of your comrades. it would suck if you were getting robbed and the policeman coming to help you out would concientiously object to saving you because they felt their actions might harm innocent bystanders. soldiers are dealt their hand, and they do the best they can with it. as i said before, judge each on his/her actions. they are trying to stay alive right now, i hope that's not too demanding on your morals.

Let us for a moment imagine a world without soldiers, how peaceful...Let us take another moment imagine a society without police officers, how free...Let us now come back to reality, the real world needs laws and to enforce the laws, police officers and soldiers are needed.

Of course, there are bad police officers and bad soldiers and this is why there are more restrictions on them than an average citizen. For examples, in the US, police officers are forbidden to curse citizens and soldiers can be punished again by the military after already punished by a civilian court for the same crime.

Not only that these people risk their lives for the safety of others, including you and me, but they also give up certain rights to be qualified to protect others. They are honorable to me.

By the way, they also risk their lives to make sure that people who hate them can safely say negative things about them.

Fallen Angel,

What Jack Handey neglects is that a world without hate can still expect and defend itself against an attack. Being a loving person doesn’t require letting someone stab you. And when he says, "I can imagine us attacking this world," well, that just amply shows why people should not let themselves become soldiers. American soldiers especially can expect to be commanded to attack worlds without hate.

If the government is up to no good, thus the soldiers are up to no good, then quitting the war likely minimizes casualties and misery overall. A soldier I can respect is there to serve and protect the greatest good. That's the commitment they should have. If quitting causes a comrade to die at the savings of several civilians, that is a better outcome than had by staying. What will more likely happen is that the commanding officer will request a new recruit and if the leadership cannot supply one in time they will be forced to fall back and regroup, likely minimizing casualties of both soldiers and civilians.

The case in which a soldier in an offensive war should not quit is when he or she is convinced that staying serves the greater good. Like when Hugh Thompson (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/Myl_hero.html#HUGH%20THOMPSON:) threatened to kill his fellow American soldiers to help stop the My Lai massacre. Unfortunately those situations are hardly ever so clear (had he done the same thing about bombs being dropped on the same people, he’d probably have been imprisoned or worse and the bombs would still have been be dropped), so quitting is typically the best choice.

If I were getting robbed I certainly would expect the policeman to risk my life to save innocent bystanders. That is, I would expect the officer to not risk the lives of bystanders to save me.

GuessWho,

Translating the meat of your post I get “Police officers and soldiers, whether good or bad, are honorable to me.”

zanket,

Wrong translation! The word "honorable" does not apply to bad people no matter who they are? For example, there are "dishonorable" discharges to those soldiers who are bad.

OK. How about when the whole war is bad and the soldiers do their duty within it?

For example, the prez says, "we having nothing against those people per se nevertheless we're going to annex their country and put them under our yoke, making them work for peanuts to extract their resources for the benefit of my corporate sponsors." Then the soldiers comply. Are they still honorable to you?

(im back....i couldnt resist...)

YES its honorable. My reasoning is....

In today's society, people have lost the respect and duty in life. No one commits themselves anymore to things, people switch their minds and lives as often as they change their shirts. In a disposable society of today, I think its commendable that someone in the face of obvious opposition will do what they signed on to do. THEIR JOB.

I liken the whole situation to the undertaker. The person who carries out the will of the law by taking someones life. Yes, people might ultimately disagree about the descision, people might think its wrong to put people to death, but the undertaker must do their job in order to preserve order. Just as Fallen Angel said, when you commit yourself you need to follow through.

zanket,

The war is not bad just because you think that it is. Except for the two deserters who fled to Canada, US soldiers are thinking the opposite of yours.

You post a propaganda claiming that the war is bad then expect an answer from me whether they are honorable? I have some news for you, the majority of these soldiers do not believe that this war is bad.

In a disposable society of today, I think its commendable that someone in the face of obvious opposition will do what they signed on to do. THEIR JOB.

That’s certainly a common sentiment. It’s a disheartening sentiment, however, when THEIR JOB is to murder people and steal from them. Ooh but I forgot it’s not murder when the US declares it legal.

You post a propaganda claiming that the war is bad then expect an answer from me whether they are honorable?

The question I posed to you was a hypothetical. Can you answer it?

I have some news for you, the majority of these soldiers do not believe that this war is bad.

I didn't suggest otherwise. I said if the war (any war) is obviously bad then I won’t have respect for them if they stay in it. I do think Iraq and Afghanistan are bad wars but I don't expect the soldiers to agree with me. I just won't respect the ones who disagree, because to me it's obviously bad and it should be obvious to them as well.

That’s certainly a common sentiment. It’s a disheartening sentiment, however, when THEIR JOB is to murder people and steal from them. Ooh but I forgot it’s not murder when the US declares it legal.


Oh PLEASE. War is inevidable. Being human means having to sometimes do and be things that others might disagree with - it doesnt make someone a bad person.

Question for you - Is there such a thing as a "just" war? (i.e. WWII with the mass genocide - people fought to end the horrific happenings....etc.)

Basically zanket, I understand you disagree with the war, but why shame the messengers, and the people who have the unfortunate job of having to carry out someone else's wishes? If you want to blame someone, blame the politicians and leaders, not the soldiers who are just trying to do their jobs and make a living.

Every order given by military superiors has to b video recorded.

Its one thing to fight terrorism and another to establish long term military bases in other countries, do that in my country and I will see terrorism as fight for my country. I wont budge to do anything for that or go to any extent.

spaganya
Due to technology USA can no longer do what it did in past, All U will end up is with thousands of bin laden, if that’s what U want , go for it. Todays American technology is tommorows terrorist toy.

Due to technology USA can no longer do what it did in past, All U will end up is with thousands of bin laden, if that’s what U want , go for it. Todays American technology is tommorows terrorist toy.


What did the US do in the past? And why would that make you end up with thousands of bin ladens???

Let me get this straight zanket. You believe that any one who disagrees with you should not deserve respect. If that is what you are saying then I feel sad for you. That is the exact kind of attitude that starts wars that soldiers have to fight in.

oooh AMEN laughing weasel!!!

No one forced them to drop bombs on kids. Duress of law is nothing compared to that.

That's a separate argument, I think. I agree entirely.

But in the day, there was no guarantee that the soldier one was spitting on was directly guilty or knowledgeable of the specific results of any given support activity. One of the failings of the psychedelic left was its unrefined, disorganized anger. Mobilized and ideological, much as a religion can sink into fundamentalism without vocal and educated leadership, so too did the nearly-pentecostal fervor of the Flower Age tread at times into a self-betraying rejection of due process and human respect. What "enlightened" leadership there was suffered a classic flaw of the left: by conducting itself similarly to what it rejects, the angry left only undermines itself by miring its principles in unnatural selection.

Some in the conservative-exploitative agenda have cracked jokes about the shoe-waving and -pelting behavior in parts of the Muslim world, but the American leftist heritage with which I sympathize cannot duck that chapter of its own. It's well enough to say "it wasn't me," but in the history of ideas that come together as a major tributary to my own identity politics, much as I feel the Christian ought recall at times the atrocities of the past, so I ought not duck this of any of the dozens of ridiculous episodes of the history of the Left. I mean, hey ... did you catch that Communist Revolution in Russia? Good show, that one. (Purging the intellectuals is so unhealthy for the future of a society--but look at how it developed without them. Nearly-fundamentalist. It's a recurring theme.)

Emma Goldman, after whom I name my daughter, attempted assassination. Lord Acton wrote a compelling, dispassionate argument in favor of American slavery. One of my most apparent ideological identity politics is derived from an idea which must necessarily at some point be invoked as a cutoff-point for human sympathy: Sisyphus must be happy.

I'm aware of ... most (?!) ... okay, many .... I'm aware of many of the traps of my own ideological heritage, and amid the expectant optimism of the Flower Age, I must also acknowledge that the history, as I understand it, includes the potential of such raw communal energy leading to some ugly mob behavior. I mean, come on ... that was supposed to be the "enlightened" left during the Flower Age.

If the New American Century ruptures into a new Flower tantrum, I have considerably higher expectations of the Flower Children.

They went way over the line in their anger on many occasions.

That injustice is what I refer to.

The war may go horribly, but the Left in general has a hard time saving face whenever it goes vigilante. Due process, not personal satisfaction, is the proper demand of the Left in the face of a war it finds repugnant. Just as due process ought to be the minimum standard of any war the Left finds favorable.

Every soldier in Iraq signed on willingly. A deserter said he'd served his term, and claims it was the US who broke contract. I ... I don't necessarily agree, but I haven't read all the fine print. This war is an atrocity, and while we ought not go out of our way to harass soldiers returning from Iraq or whatever action one disapproves of, we need not defer automatically to the nobility and honor of the soldier, in this or any other country.

I mean, I have no ill words whatsoever for the soldiers in the Solomon Islands (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3805821.stm). As I understand it, they're doing exactly what soldiers are supposed to be doing, and quite well. Perhaps there's some press I'm missing somewhere, but that whole operation seems impressive.

The shock and awe shown by some of my American neighbors, the rumblings of a press corps seeking a headline and stirring up all sorts of crap in the water cooler, and the mantra of "God bless the USA," and the wrecking of the seventh-inning stretch, and the whole of the war culture seems bent on lending moral legitimacy to a bunch of volunteers who chose to follow their presidents come Hell or heavy sandstorm. If the duty undertaken by these volunteers includes the New American Century, then I think right there is a strike against the automatic deference of honor and respect to the modern (American) soldier.

But beyond the suspension of automatic moral elevation, these soldiers, too, are human. We owe them some compassion in the face of their sins when they sin. And yes, I have a little more compassion for the conscripts as well. Doesn't mean you don't hold them responsible. But apparently I'm the only one who sees the difference between a frightened teenage conscript failing to understand the problems of some of his orders and the idea of a volunteer who, in conscious choosing of the warring path, has less reason to have missed or to forget on occasion certain points of refinement.

You're right. All human beings are exactly alike. Circumstances have nothing to do with anything. ;)

I was watching and eposode of Frasure the other day and i am wondering if this happens in real life over in the states

Frasure critisises the polices of the senate candiate and the responce was "How dare a non millatry serving, single person critise a Family man who served in...." ect

Is it really the case that people over there think that because they served in the armed forces that there arguments should carry more wieght?

or was it just a joke

In the end those who are willing to kill for their beliefs have more power than those who are not willing to kill for theirs simply because in the end they can always kill the pacifist. This does not mean that violence is the best answer. It has been my experience that violence is usually a bad answer. Violence usually stops all other options and end up causing too much destruction to be a viable option.

spaganya
If U don’t understand Y U hav 1 bin laden then U ill definitely end up with thousands, stop acting naïve, save Ur self before USA is wiped out of world map with or without world.

tiassa, no automatic respect is needed, but zanket's automatic disrespect is inapropiate.

If U don’t understand Y U hav 1 bin laden then U ill definitely end up with thousands, stop acting naïve, save Ur self before USA is wiped out of world map with or without world.

first of all, learn how to type please, it took me forever to figure out what you are saying.

second of all, thats not an answer or response to my question. what are you talking about? or are you just lacking an intelligent response and just resigned that the US is destined for the pits of hell? :bugeye:

Oh PLEASE. War is inevidable.

Defensive war may be likely in the long run. Offensive war is certainly not inevitable; it’s a choice.

Being human means having to sometimes do and be things that others might disagree with - it doesnt make someone a bad person.

So you respect serial killers and pedophiles? They’re good people to you?

Question for you - Is there such a thing as a "just" war? (i.e. WWII with the mass genocide - people fought to end the horrific happenings....etc.)

Sure. A just war is a defensive war in which you make your best effort to minimize casualties on both sides. You defend yourself only to the extent necessary. WWII started out with a just beginning for the US but they gave up just cause with the Dresden, Hiroshima, & Nagasaki bombings among others. It is obvious those civilians did not need to be killed. The US ended that war as an offender for the purpose of cementing their role as a superpower, so they could leverage this superpower status for profit.

Basically zanket, I understand you disagree with the war, but why shame the messengers, and the people who have the unfortunate job of having to carry out someone else's wishes?

I think you asked me that already. It’s because they are not the messengers. They are the enforcers, the ones who make a bad war possible. And I disrespect not only them but also the people who lead them and those who support those leaders, and to a lesser extent even those who don’t support the leaders but do support the troops. But this thread isn’t about them; it’s about only the soldiers. Unlike the messenger, who generally does not know what the message they are delivering is, the soldier knows they are executing a bad war, or should know (ignorance is not an excuse when the information is widely available).

An advice column I read recently had a question from a prosecuting attorney. He said he frequently prosecutes drug users and small-time drug dealers, often sending them to prison for lengthy terms. He wanted to know if the fact that he was a user of those same drugs himself made him a hypocrite. If you think about it, that is analogous to the issue we are debating here.

Let me get this straight zanket. You believe that any one who disagrees with you should not deserve respect. If that is what you are saying then I feel sad for you. That is the exact kind of attitude that starts wars that soldiers have to fight in.

I presume then that you respect serial killers and pedophiles. There are degrees of disagreement.

Due process, not personal satisfaction, is the proper demand of the Left in the face of a war it finds repugnant. Just as due process ought to be the minimum standard of any war the Left finds favorable.

I agree. I wouldn’t spit on a returning soldier. It is possible that any one individual is in fact a Hugh-Thompson-like hero. I disrespect the soldiers there in general. Ideally I’d want them to know that millions of people here in the US disrespect what they’re doing (not that millions do; I’m arguing here that they should), to give them in an inverse way the support they need to quit the offensive. Ideally what the soldiers are doing there would be illegal. But it's not (the US is now the definer of legality worldwide), so disrespect seems the next best recourse.

In the end those who are willing to kill for their beliefs have more power than those who are not willing to kill for theirs simply because in the end they can always kill the pacifist.

That's irrelevant to this topic. I’m no pacifist myself.

tiassa, no automatic respect is needed, but zanket's automatic disrespect is inapropiate.

There seem to be a lot of people in this thread who respect serial killers and pedophiles--or at least don't automatically disrespect them. If a pedophile writes a book about how much he likes sodomizing toddlers and he doesn't deserve automatic disrepect, then really the word should be removed from the dictionary as useless. A soldier in an offensive war does far worse than sodomize toddlers--he kills them.

There seem to be a lot of people in this thread who respect serial killers and pedophiles--or at least don't automatically disrespect them. If a pedophile writes a book about how much he likes sodomizing toddlers and he doesn't deserve automatic disrepect, then really the word should be removed from the dictionary as useless. A soldier in an offensive war does far worse than sodomize toddlers--he kills them.


Okay, why are you comparing soldiers to pedophiles an serial killers (who by nature are mental sociopaths and dont even view what they do as wrong or right) ?????

When i say we should respect soldiers you seem to think that respect equates being in agreement about what they do. Havent you ever been in a debate or fight or arugument and might not like what the other person is saying but because of the dedication they give to their conviction and the way about they defend their point of view or simply the way they carry out the task puts you in awe? Respect doesnt mean you have to like what the soldiers do, respect means that you should realize that altho they might do things that you disagree with, they nonetheless would do any job put before them. These are the same soldiers who will put their life on the line oneday maybe for something YOU care deeply about - and because of THAT they deserve respect. They do things that YOU wouldnt have the balls to do. :mad:

wouldnt have the balls to do or have the courage to see that its wrong?

who wouldnt fight if someone invaded, that isnt the debate. Its wether they can see how they are being used NOW and stand up against it rather than blindly follow along

All of your soldier hate is misplaced as always. Michael Moore, an icon I would think, for the Leftist movement just came out with a film called Fahrenheit 9/11. Surprisingly (or so it would seem according to the likes of zanket) he is careful not to hate the soldiers for wrong reasons. He is extremely critical of the administration, and provides proof for it. If anyone would be against the war in Iraq, it would be him. All you leftists on this post should take lessons from him as he has the common sense to realize what soldiers do and where to place the blame.

Okay, why are you comparing soldiers to pedophiles an serial killers (who by nature are mental sociopaths and dont even view what they do as wrong or right) ?????

A serial killer or pedophile is a sociopath by definition. Certainly they view what they are doing as right; otherwise they wouldn’t do it. They just disagree with most of society about whether their pleasure is right, and because of that disagreement society labels them as having an antisocial personality disorder (the definition of sociopath).

Likewise a soldier does what he thinks is right when he kills toddlers, whether in defense or offense. Society does not label either soldier (defensive or offensive) as a sociopath simply because most of society agrees with killing toddlers whether in defense or offense.

When i say we should respect soldiers you seem to think that respect equates being in agreement about what they do. Havent you ever been in a debate or fight or arugument and might not like what the other person is saying but because of the dedication they give to their conviction and the way about they defend their point of view or simply the way they carry out the task puts you in awe? Respect doesnt mean you have to like what the soldiers do, respect means that you should realize that altho they might do things that you disagree with, they nonetheless would do any job put before them.

That sounds nice but really it is all just rationalization. Replace “soldier” with “gang member” and read it back to yourself. Do you respect gang members because they would do any job their leader puts before them? I’d like you to answer that one.

These are the same soldiers who will put their life on the line oneday maybe for something YOU care deeply about - and because of THAT they deserve respect.

Like I said, when they defend me I respect them. You, like most people, seem to not distinguish between defense and offense. Defense is a firefighter. Offense is a gang member. BIG difference. I respect the firefighter. I won’t respect the gang member today because of some good he might do tomorrow.

They do things that YOU wouldnt have the balls to do.

It doesn’t take balls to kills toddlers for profit. They should have the balls to NOT do that when so ordered.

wouldnt have the balls to do or have the courage to see that its wrong?

who wouldnt fight if someone invaded, that isnt the debate. Its wether they can see how they are being used NOW and stand up against it rather than blindly follow along

Exactly. Most people respect “blindly following along” rather standing up against it.

Michael Moore, an icon I would think, for the Leftist movement just came out with a film called Fahrenheit 9/11.

I wouldn’t call him an icon considering he sat on info he had about the US torture that could have stopped it sooner. Obviously he’s more concerned about profit than saving lives.

Surprisingly (or so it would seem according to the likes of zanket) he is careful not to hate the soldiers for wrong reasons.

Maybe because he doesn’t want a bullet through his head? There are lots of reasons I can think of for why he wouldn’t point out that the soldiers are accomplices to the murder ordered by Bush.

zanket.. thought you might find this interesting, seems the soldiers are speaking out (referencing the posting about retention rates after war)

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=37719

Likewise a soldier does what he thinks is right when he kills toddlers, whether in defense or offense. Society does not label either soldier (defensive or offensive) as a sociopath simply because most of society agrees with killing toddlers whether in defense or offense.


It doesn’t take balls to kills toddlers for profit. They should have the balls to NOT do that when so ordered.


First of all, i dont need a lesson on what a sociopath is from the likes of you.

Secondly, i ask you to kindly refrain from calling all soldiers killers of toddlers. Its not true, nor is it even relevant.

Third, you still seem to be missing my point. You claim to support what soldiers do ONLY when it suits your ideals. The soldier's job BY DEFINITION is to carry out someone elses wishes. If you have a problem with what they are doing, FINE. Take it up with the idiot in the white house. HE is their commander - and by definition he COMMANDS them to do what they do.

FOR the 2394823084th time, (in hopes that maybe you would understand someone else's viewpoint other than your own....) Soldiers are doing their jobs. That is what they signed on for. When you sign your name on that agreement, you agree to do WHAT YOU ARE TOLD or face dire consequences. Military law is NOT a democracy driven thing. It is a dictatorship where you do what you are told.

Do not blame the soldier if you turn on the television and dont like what you are seeing. blame the dumbasses people elect to public offices that tell the poor soldiers what to do.

By the way, if soldiers did whatever they wanted whenever they wanted there would be anarchy. a HUGE departure from your fantasized utopia without war. If you would wake up and join us in well hell, HUMAN KIND, you would see that your version of the world will probably never come to fruition. Unless you want to move to Switzerland. Hey maybe THATS a good idea.

That sounds nice but really it is all just rationalization. Replace “soldier” with “gang member” and read it back to yourself. Do you respect gang members because they would do any job their leader puts before them? I’d like you to answer that one.

I might not LIKE gang members but i have met quite a few who have left me in awe of their dedication to their group (regardless of the illegal behavior) I dont see how gang members and soldiers could be compared correctly but if you MUST try and create some type of twisted correlation, i would relate gang members to adolf hitler. Even tho he is known as one of the most evil minds ever to walk this earth, listening to a speech of his, or seeing how he was able to move MILLIONS to do his bidding, THAT i think is admirable, and if his message was different it boggles the mind what he might have accomplished. Because of his skill and prowess as a leader, i do respect him, i might hate his guts, but i still respect him.

Maybe because he doesn’t want a bullet through his head? There are lots of reasons I can think of for why he wouldn’t point out that the soldiers are accomplices to the murder ordered by Bush.

zanket, i think right there you've stretched it out a little too far. let me guess, next you'll start speaking about black helicopters? his movie is apparently greatly opposed, supposedly (according to him) movie theater owners are being threatened not to show the movie. despite all that he is moving forward. i would think he would be the last person to back down for fear of a bullet.

lastly, i wonder how your views would hold up in iraq under saddam, or under the taliban. i'm sure you'd have a long few days of your life left there. but hey, you're not there, might as well enjoy your freedoms. people like you make me wonder if any sacrifices the soldiers make are worth it.

Secondly, i ask you to kindly refrain from calling all soldiers killers of toddlers. Its not true, nor is it even relevant.

All soldiers in an offensive war are accomplices to whatever deaths occur. They all help make those deaths happen and thus all are deserving of disrespect. So it’s both true and relevant.

The soldier's job BY DEFINITION is to carry out someone elses wishes.

Unless the wish is an illegal order. The soldier’s job is to carry out only legal orders. Certainly an order to takeover another country and set up a puppet government should be illegal. Unfortunately in the US we have a situation where the leader has effectively declared himself the sole arbiter of the law. He has overturned well-established law with executive orders that the Supreme Court has not yet ruled upon. The soldiers should be able to see through that ruse and refuse the orders.

If you have a problem with what they are doing, FINE. Take it up with the idiot in the white house. HE is their commander - and by definition he COMMANDS them to do what they do.

He may command them but their allegiance is to their country’s Constitution, not him. If the soldier follows an illegal order then they are accomplices to a crime.

When you sign your name on that agreement, you agree to do WHAT YOU ARE TOLD or face dire consequences.

The consequences are not dire. A year in jail in exchange for possibly saving the life of a toddler who would be killed in offense? That’s a no-brainer.

By the way, if soldiers did whatever they wanted whenever they wanted there would be anarchy.

I didn’t suggest that they do whatever they want. I suggested they quit. That is an option they have. The military is prepared to handle the exercise of the option. The military has the forms to fill out and the jail cell waiting. If they need a replacement soldier then they can go to the job market and pay whatever is required to get one. So, no anarchy required.

If you would wake up and join us in well hell, HUMAN KIND, you would see that your version of the world will probably never come to fruition. Unless you want to move to Switzerland. Hey maybe THATS a good idea.

I don’t suggest pacifism. I just don’t respect the soldier who offends. You keep combining defense and offense.

Because of [Hitler’s] skill and prowess as a leader, i do respect him, i might hate his guts, but i still respect him.

Now I can see why we are so far apart on this topic. You see, if Hitler were alive today I wouldn’t respect him, because respect lends support; it gives power. Neither would I respect the Nazis for the same reason.

i would think [Moore] would be the last person to back down for fear of a bullet.

You make a good argument there. So I’ll say that if he respects the soldiers then I just disagree with that.

lastly, i wonder how your views would hold up in iraq under saddam, or under the taliban. i'm sure you'd have a long few days of your life left there. but hey, you're not there, might as well enjoy your freedoms. people like you make me wonder if any sacrifices the soldiers make are worth it.

Again, I don’t suggest pacifism as you imply. I support a strong defense of freedom and democracy. I enjoy my freedom so much that I want everyone to have it. Were I the prez, I’d make a list of all the dictatorships and get world support to take them all out, if not diplomatically then by force, as long as that took while making a best effort to minimize casualties on both sides. The thing I would not do, the key difference, is that I would not replace the dictatorship with another dictatorship that is a democracy in name only. I would replace it with true democracy. Soldiers who engage in the latter protect and serve and thus I respect them. Soldiers who set up puppet governments willingly make me less safe--that is, less free, just like Saddam and the Taliban did to people--and thus I disrespect them.

You apparently really dont understand what it means to be a soldier. And thank GOD you arent out there defending MY country, because the first time you were given an order you dont like you would drop your gear, and hightail it like the PASSIFIST you are. Not only would that endanger all the men and women you fought beside, it would undermine the oath you took when you became a soldier to begin with. You seem to NOT UNDERSTAND that soldiering is a job. Its what you do. You show up to work and you follow orders, trusting that the ones in command make the right decisions. AGAIN, you only seem to agree with using force when it agrees with YOUR agenda. That is not only selfish but that is short sighted.

I agree with Fallen Angel in saying that the people that think like you make me wonder why the soldiers make such sacrifices. Not only do your one sighted finger pointing stance make me angry, it also makes me sad to know how unapreciated a soldier is just because he had the unfortunate privalege to be stationed in Iraq or Afghanistan. My only hope is that people one day will figure out that freedom isnt free, and in order for you to have the freedom that allows you to detest the military so, it is the soldier that gives you that right, FIGHTS for that right. :(

I didn’t suggest they quit rather than carry out an order they don’t like. I suggest they quit rather than carry out an illegal order. That does not undermine their oath; it adheres to it. I agree with using force not for my agenda per se but for defense. It is, after all, the Dept. of Defense. I respect the soldier that fights for freedom. Unfortunately what the soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq do has little to do with freedom. They defend only themselves. I find it sad that so few people can distinguish between defense and offense.

how is this defense zanket?:

Were I the prez, I’d make a list of all the dictatorships and get world support to take them all out, if not diplomatically then by force, as long as that took while making a best effort to minimize casualties on both sides.

hmm.... Iraq comes to mind... it's a dictatorship, and US tried to get the world support to take them out, sanctions didn't work, so we went in by force, and we are US, we always attempt to minimize casualties on both sides. Unless of course, you claim that the US fights by attrition? Well, we fit your model, so what's your problem with soldiers?

how is this defense zanket?:

Dictatorship is obviously a threat to the free world (think North Korea saber-rattling). It’s also obviously a threat to the people under dictatorship. Significant threats call for defense if diplomacy fails. I think the democracies of the world should collectively use their respective Depts. of Defense to defend all people worldwide.

hmm.... I