Political You-Tube video with more votes than any other

Remove all ads!

No, I don't think it's hypocritical at all.

If you'd have read my earlier posts you would know I have been against the invasion of Iraq from the very beginning. But politician make wars, not soldiers. Once the president decided to send troops -- and it was approved by congress -- the military had no choice. They were given a mission, a mission where the politicians in charge really did not understand the total implications of what they were doing, what damage they were causing, and what it would take to fix that damage. My anger at this is solely directed at the politicians -- which is where it belongs in my opinion.

To direct that anger at members of the military is simply wrong. To discount the good things those people are doing is also wrong.

The police and the military often fill the same shoes in many countries and on peacekeeping missions. Soldier are also trained to use their weapons only under the most dire of circumstances -- circumstances too often dictated by politicians.

 

I'm not angry at members of the military. I just don't respect them. You state correctly that the military has no choice when send out. But every individual has the choice not to become part of that, at least in countries where military service is voluntary. How can I respect someone for his choice to become a blunt instrument if he knows what he may get into?

 

Well, there we disagree. I have respect for most people (I tend to have little respect for those people who are self-centered or lazy). I hold in higher regard those willing to serve the community -- local, state, national, or world. I have the same respect for the local police office as I have for a park ranger, a Peace Corps volunteer, a member of the military, and a teacher. I think all are vital and all those professions involve some sacrifice. It is sacrifice that earns the added respect -- putting others above themselves.

In reality, people tend to respect those who reflect their own priorities and ethics. Clearly we have different ethics. To me, history has shown why a military is needed so having a military falls within my priorities. Hence, the military is an occupation I respect.

You say you are not angry with the military, but you are obviously very biased against the military -- prejudice is a form of fear and hatred which is often expressed through anger. Total apathy for one entire group of people is a form of anger.

 

Fabius:

I think you'll find this is a largely modern concept, as is the idea of international law. Even so, if one party is willing to do so, the other must be willing to surrender completely or respond in kind. Think less of Vietnam (from a US perspective) and more of WW II (from any perspective except Germany, Italy, and Japan).

 

Of course it's a modern concept. But that's not the matter here. I made a point for invalidating T2Bruno's equation of military and police. The police has a stable system of laws on which grounds it can operate. The military has not.


@T2B: Of course I'm biased. As you are. So, what's your point?

 

Fabius, actually, they do so long as you assume the agressor isn't the 'police' but rather the 'criminal'. Remember, in that exchange, only one is obeying the law. The same can be said about just about every military conflict.

 

My bias is not based on hatred, yours is. I will never understand how someone can harbor such hatred for a group of people simply based on who they are (not even what they, as individuals, have done) -- and I don't want to.

If you are an anachist, then I understand where you might be coming from (I still would not agree). However, if you are a passivist, such blatant prejudice goes against the fundamentals of passivist thought.

 

Hmm, I do not see a = between not respecting someone due to their choice of work or even not respecting their choice of work and hating them. I do not respect voluntary Palestinian youths who bomb Israeli cafeés nor do I respect the Israeli soldier who revels in his service and without hesitating bombs residential areas. I do not respect the American soldier who out of, in my opinion, a misguided sense of duty goes to a foreign country to implement the policies of Washington with force of arms. That doesn't mean I hate them, I could even be friends with them but I could not respect their choices as I find them either morally repugnant or ignorant. This is the spooky thing though, people can make a living of death and destruction and still come off as nice decent people. Now I am making a tired and worn out analogy again but it is most often apt seeing as Nazi Germany is our greatest example of what we consider to be pretty close to pure evil. You could have an SS soldier, who hunts down and captures jews during the day and then in the evening he is a devoted and loving family father, a reliable and entertaining friend. In my eyes the difference between him and you T2 is razorthin. You have stated that you would be and have been willing to kill to defend American political and economical interests, not in defence, not even in pre-emptive defence but to if I remember correctly to defend US economical policies to stop instability in the US caused by financial difficulties. For me that is a choice I could never respect. I still like you, could still see myself chugging a few beers with you and having a nice time. People can do horrible things without being horrible people, that is the scary thing and why I feel so strongly over this issue. If the problem only was evil people doing evil things then the problem would be pretty managable and we would have clear lines but it isn't, the problem is good people doing evil things.

 

I don't know joacqin...

"cannot respect"
"brainwash"
"blunt instrument"
"killer"

or your own comments:

"morally repugnant"
"ignorant"
"misguided"

...all sound pretty hateful to me. By the way, this:

is true. The primary purpose of the US Navy is to ensure free trade is maintained. The US imports ~75% of what we need to live our day-to-day lives (we export food, but all our other necessities rely on imports). Most of this comes by sea. The US is often likened to an island nation. Without free trade the US becomes cut off from the supplies needed to survive and would dissolve into anarchy (as medical supplies, processed food, clothing, gasoline, repair equipment all stopped being produced) -- think of New Orleans on a national scale. Defense of the country must also extend to preventing such anarchy. As such, maintaining the economic ties (trade lanes) open has been the primary mission of the Navy for well over 100 years. Shipping is the life blood of the US.

 

Yeah, T2, and that's coming from a guy who lives in the Land of the Vikings....

Btw, I think you are right on it in this thread, T2.

 

1. "Cannot respect" is not hateful.

2. Brainwashing soldiers to de-humanize the enemy is standard training procedure to maximize enemy casualties.

3. "Blunt instrument" is just another expression for...

...4. "killer". Soldiers are trained to be killers. All soldiers are required to go through basic training, where they are trained to kill.

These are all facts, exept for the first point, which is not relevant at all. And ripping them out of context isn't exactly the fine art of discussion, too.

 

Fabius, in their context they appeared more hateful than out of context.

 

They are not facts Fabius, they are your opinions. By calling such opinions 'facts' you dehumanize an entire section of our world population. History is filled with examples of people or nations who did exactly what you are doing.

 

T2, you say that you would be willing to slit the throat of another human being on the order of a guy with more stripes on his shoulders than you who got his orders from someone with even more stripes until we get to some suit in Washington who have decided that you need to kill this man because this suit thinks that doing so might help stabilize the prize of coffee/oil/bananas/Toyotas in the US. You do not see a problem with this? You would take out your knife, slice it over this mans throat, this man who have a family, parents, maybe children, a girlfriend waiting for him, take a step back so the blood won't foul your uniform and see the life go out in his eyes? You are willing to do this, you think doing things like this is worthy of admiration and respect? I am using a knife here to illustrate the point, what is the difference if you slice the throat of a man sitting tied down in a chair or if you press the button that launch the missile that will kill him in a chair 50km away? He is no immediate threat to your safety or anyone you know. All he has done is to live in another country than you, have the same beliefs you have and want to serve his country and the people in Washington decides that the location he is at is a threat in someway to the US.

If you want me to respect and admire that mindset then you want me to respect the 9/11 hi-jackers, you want me to respect suicide bombers, you want me to respect any person who have ever killed "for the greater good".

I do not hate, I pity and can't understand how those people think. Many of them at least have the excuse of poverty, ignorance and desperation what is your excuse? You are an intelligent person, at least you come off as one and you obviously have given these questions quite a lot of thought but yet you would be willing to kill another human being in cold blood because someone tells you to. Trusting that someone, somewhere, knows what they are doing and that they are doing it for the greater good.

 

Dude, you really need to get a grip. Seriously. Our soldiers are required to follow lawful orders, and slitting a helpless man's throat is never going to be a lawful order. An order to kill an innocent civilian isn't a lawful order, either. Try to wrap your mind around the idea that the vast majority of people who choose military service do so to defend their country, provide for their families, or to pay for college, not out of some twisted desire to kill people. Once they join, soldiers are required to follow orders, but they neither desire nor expect to be used wantonly to prosecute unjust wars against nations which do not threaten us. The best evidence of this lies with the simple fact that our very conservative and staunchly republican military appears to have broken in favor of Obama, in this case a clear condemnation of Bush's policy of pre-emptive war and his general mismanagement of Iraq and Afghanistan. No one hates war more than a soldier.

 

Drew, either you didn't understand joacquin's post, or you make a distinction between soldier and human being, as in one you are allowed to kill as a soldier, the other not.

Joac didn't write about civilians.

 

Why do I need to get a grip? Because I boil down the issue in a way that you find offensive? Everything you say is true, but the question is if it matters? You react when I write about slitting someones throat but you think it is ok to drop a bomb on someones head? What is the difference? What is the difference between lawful and unlawful? The end result is the same, you kill someone because someone else tells you to. The rest of your post is nothing I dispute and what makes this issue so horrendous. We have young men and women who want to do good, who think they do good but are willing to do "evil" if the right person tells them to. Not to mention of course what the entire war situation does to these kids and what they are willing to do after a few months in a war zone.

I think the entire issue may boil down to question of whether good intensions are enough but I think in this day and age at least in our western world can expect our youths to think over what they are fighting, killing and dying for. Even though I ultimately blame Bush, Rumsfeld and company for all atrocities commited by US soldiers in Iraq that does not make the individual soldiers blameless. Now I am starting to repeat myself but I am glad that I got a reaction from my use of the slit throat example as it is of course vastly different to kill someone with a blade than with any other weapon, right? Or well, we all know that any order that originates in Washington is always good, moral and just with the objective of making the world a better place for all men?

Again, with your reasoning the nazis gassing jews are heroes, the Japanese ravaging half of Asia were heroes, the terrorists the US are fighting are heroes. Or at least just average joes trying to make a difference or supporting their family or is it like this that the US is different, that it is better than any other country or organisation that has ever existed? That the US in itself is inherently good?

 

When exactly did I say that I thought it was "OK" to drop a bomb on a target? (Bombs explode, so dropping them on someone's head is completely unnecessary. They are also usually used to take out targets based on their strategic significance, not on their potential kill-counts.) There's a fine line between "sometimes necessary" and "OK", and I have never said bombing a target is "OK". It isn't OK, but it is sometimes made necessary due to diplomatic incompetence or the refusal of one party to enter into negotiations. Contrary to what you appear to believe, two leaders aren't necessary to start a war. Just one crazy despot or war-monger is more than enough.

The difference is that bombs are dropped in order to serve a tactical purpose and achieve a military objective. It is done, in essence, to weaken the resistance encountered by the infantry, which will in theory lead to reduced casualties on both sides (US troops don't kill prisoners and are required to accept a surrender, and taking out a communications tower, for example, can cripple an enemy's ground forces and cause them to surrender rather than fight). To slit a man's throat, the man must be helpless. In other words, the man is a prisoner. US troops do not kill prisoners.

Joaquin, I take no pleasure in opposing you in this thread, but you carry your pacifism and outright hatred (yes, hatred) of soldiers well beyond the point of sanity. I, myself, would probably qualify as a pacifist, yet even I am not foolish or naive enough to believe that war can always be avoided. It can't. Under Clinton, our military was employed to stop nations from committing genocide. Under George H.W. Bush, our military was employed to enforce international law and protect the rights of a sovereign nation. I doubt you were out protesting the actions of the US military during the 12 years prior to G.W.'s reign.

It is absolutely true that the military can be misused, but our troops had no way of knowing when they signed up that G.W. was going to lie to his nation and the world in order to use American troops to prosecute an unjust and illegal war. When they signed up, they had no way of knowing that our president would defy the Geneva Conventions, nor have our soldiers had any say on the matter. This doesn't mean they've done nothing.

Why do we know about the horrors of Abu-Ghraib? Because US soldiers who were offended by such inhumane treatment leaked it. Why do we know about the abuses in Guantanamo? Because US soldiers complained about it. A soldier that attended the Defense Language Institute and studied Arabic at the same time I did (his class was about two weeks ahead of mine) even wrote a scathing book about GITMO after his tour. Most telling, though, is that our soldiers supported Barack Obama in the recent election and that re-enlistments have gone way down as the truth about the war in Iraq has come out. If our troops were behind this war, they'd be staying in.

While American soldiers do consent to fight whenever their country asks it of them, and while they willingly cast aside many of the civil freedoms enjoyed by regular Americans, this doesn't mean that they expect their president to employ them without just cause. It's been over 30 years since Vietnam. I, for one, don't blame our soldiers for mistakenly believing that we've learned something since then.

 

Stabilize the price? No.

Because the man is preventing the shipment of food to a nation where people are starving to death? Yes.

Because the man is in an armed ship, threatening the blow chemical precursors needed to manufacture medicines -- the loss of which will cost hundreds of lives? Yes.

Because the man is trying to mine the waters around the Persian Gulf to prevent the shipment of oil necessary to keep the energy and power for dozens of countries around the world -- the loss of such power will cost thousands of lives due to hospitals shutting down and riots? Yes.

Because the man is holding a dozen Olympic athletes hostage and threatens to kill them? Yes.

You give no reason for the order of the killing in your example -- in reality there is always a reason. I find the biggest flaw in your argument is your belief that the reason for military action doesn't matter. By the reasoning you've presented, the taking of one life to prevent the loss of thousands is wrong. I don't see it that way.

 

The reason why I don't specify is that most soldiers generally do not feel the need to have their orders clarified or explained. Is not even the acceptance of orders without questions (to some extent) part of being a soldier even in our "enlightened" western militaries? Would you honestly have refused to launch the missile if you disagreed with the reason for launching it T2? I have grudgingly accepted that at times force might be needed to oppose people (soldiers) deluded into using force for what they believe is the greater good. My point here is that the average soldier is neither interested nor capable in deciding whether what they are fighting for is good or not. Pretty much everyone is convinced that they are doing good, very very few "evil deeds" are committed by people who are aware that they are doing wrong.

Again, I do not hate them no matter how many times you claim I do. They have made a decision and choice in life I can't understand or condone. They willingly turn themselves into instruments of death and then relinquish the power over their actions to other people to decide when and where and for what to fight. A few get lucky and actually end up fighting for worthy causes but how many aren't that lucky?

I am naive and idealistic I willingly concede that but the pink glasses that so many of you Americans view your military through and the uses your politicians put them to is even more naive. The US is a superpower, it wants to keep that position, the interest of the US is first and foremost everything else is secondary. The US has shown again and again that they are willing to use force to reach their political goals. Shown that they are willing to both openly invade other countries like in Vietnam and Iraq or to more covertly oppose and bring down often democratically elected governments mostly in Latin America. The US gets what it wants in any way possible, this is real politics, this is how the world works. The US is no worse than any other great power in the history of th world and better than most. When you sign up to be a soldier for such a power you should have an inkling of what you sign up for no? That at any time it can be decided in the halls of power that somewhere there is something that needs to be done by force to serve US interests and that they might be sent off to kill or die for issues most of them do not understand and if you are correct Drew many of them disagree with. That is why I view more or less all soldiers in the same way and make no difference between them depending on what flag they wear or for what cause they fight and why I find them not worthy of respect. The likelyhood of a soldier actually doing good is at best 50/50 but I would say that most of the time it is lower than that. Two wrongs rarely make one right.