Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
“The most noble fate a man can endure is to place his own mortal body between his loved home and the war's desolation.” – Lt. Col. Jean V. duBois
While there are far too many videogame wannebees in the military since 9/11, a soldier is honorable not because he wants to go to war, but because he's willing to go to war, and to do so at someone else's command. You honor him for his willingness to make the ultimate commitment if necessary.
Why is "service" in the armed forces a good thing even if it was a b.s. war in the first place? By extension, one could argue that because world peace would be a far superior state to the current one, it would be beneficial to all if no one, in any part of the world, signed up to fight in any war, ever.
Policy is set by an elected government, not by individuals. The U.S. is a country worthy of being proud of and giving service to. Whether a war is B.S. or not is worthy of debate. You can spit on politicians; you cannot spit on your country or those that serve it.
The U.S. is not perfect but it is by far the best country in the world. It has given many people a chance, a second chance and a third chance. If it weren't for the U.S. I wouldn't be here. My ancestors would have perished in the Czar's army in Ukraine, in the shtetls (ghettos) of Poland and/or in the Holocaust had they not come to these shores between 1896 and 1910.
These immigrants kissed the ground when they came here, being free at last. And you think that is unworthy of defense?
Honoring those who served our country in time of need is just and worthwhile. I do wish that the media would use the term "heroes" a little more judiciously, though. Just because you put on a uniform does not automatically make you a hero. That term should be reserved for people who accomplish the exceptional, often at great risk, and display special courage or valor. Some non-military examples might include single mothers in the inner city who raise good kids, teachers who sacrifice high incomes in private business to work in high-risk schools with high-need kids, or young people who forego partying and hanging out to volunteer at veterans homes or senior hospices.
I've seen a bumper sticker that says "What if they held a war and no one came?"
It's easy to pass the blame for war onto kings, presidents, administrations, generals- but ultimately, there can be no war without soldiers willing to fight. I believe the vast majority of soldiers fight because they've been taught it's the right thing to do, not because they actually want to be murderers. Young people are not taught to think out the consequences or morality of their actions when it comes to obeying the state. But it is their willingness to fight that allows the fighting to continue, whatever their motivation. If soldiering - that is, being a hired killer for the state - were looked at with derision, ridicule, dishonor, then far fewer people would choose it voluntarily. With fewer volunteers, the war-making state would have to scale back its activities; a draft for an aggressive war of choice would not fly among a people that valued peace and viewed killing as wrong.
I believe it is up to every individual to make choices regarding his actions, and an immoral choice is immoral regardless of what a commanding officer says. Was not the defense of "just following orders" consistently derided when it was used by Nazi war criminals? Why then should it be sufficient when it is used by the American soldier who takes part in an imperialistic war of aggression in the Middle East? If "fighting for one's country" is worthy of honor, shouldn't all soldiers from all countries be equally honorable?
For me, the people worthy of honor are those who do not fight, regardless of the consequences to themselves. The draft dodgers, the conscientious objectors, the protesters- these are the people who hold to an ethical principle and do not let the majority opinion or the coercive arm of the state sway them from their convictions. When these are honored above those who would willingly pick up a gun and shoot whomever Uncle Sam points them at, then I believe peace will actually have a chance.
I've seen a bumper sticker that says "What if they held a war and no one came?"
It's easy to pass the blame for war onto kings, presidents, administrations, generals- but ultimately, there can be no war without soldiers willing to fight. I believe the vast majority of soldiers fight because they've been taught it's the right thing to do, not because they actually want to be murderers. Young people are not taught to think out the consequences or morality of their actions when it comes to obeying the state. But it is their willingness to fight that allows the fighting to continue, whatever their motivation. If soldiering - that is, being a hired killer for the state - were looked at with derision, ridicule, dishonor, then far fewer people would choose it voluntarily. With fewer volunteers, the war-making state would have to scale back its activities; a draft for an aggressive war of choice would not fly among a people that valued peace and viewed killing as wrong.
Policy is set by an elected government, not by individuals. The U.S. is a country worthy of being proud of and giving service to. Whether a war is B.S. or not is worthy of debate. You can spit on politicians; you cannot spit on your country or those that serve it.
The U.S. is not perfect but it is by far the best country in the world. It has given many people a chance, a second chance and a third chance. If it weren't for the U.S. I wouldn't be here. My ancestors would have perished in the Czar's army in Ukraine, in the shtetls (ghettos) of Poland and/or in the Holocaust had they not come to these shores between 1896 and 1910.
These immigrants kissed the ground when they came here, being free at last. And you think that is unworthy of defense?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlaskaAma
I believe it is up to every individual to make choices regarding his actions, and an immoral choice is immoral regardless of what a commanding officer says. Was not the defense of "just following orders" consistently derided when it was used by Nazi war criminals? Why then should it be sufficient when it is used by the American soldier who takes part in an imperialistic war of aggression in the Middle East? If "fighting for one's country" is worthy of honor, shouldn't all soldiers from all countries be equally honorable?
The Nazis are not sui generis. Their actions were so uniquely horrible that civilized people should not have obeyed. U.S. wars are much closer to boundaries of decency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlaskaAma
For me, the people worthy of honor are those who do not fight, regardless of the consequences to themselves. The draft dodgers, the conscientious objectors, the protesters- these are the people who hold to an ethical principle and do not let the majority opinion or the coercive arm of the state sway them from their convictions. When these are honored above those who would willingly pick up a gun and shoot whomever Uncle Sam points them at, then I believe peace will actually have a chance.
Those people can go to jail or Canada. They are not worthy of the people who died to give them their freedoms.
I was in a war at one time when I was young. After many, many years I have realized it was the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time for the wrong reasons. So many of our wars since 1946 fit that description.
Loosing the Dogs of War on some population to protect some financial investors or speculators is about the worst thing people can do to each other. It is far better to let the investments be lost than to kill humans to prevent it.
An Army soldier attending Artsfest on Memorial Day thought something was fishy with the Marine uniform worn by 75-year-old Robert Ford, who was strolling along Front Street.
Ford's hat bore some wrinkles, according to the soldier's assessment, and his belt buckle looked too ornate for his rank.
The soldier enlisted the help of a Harrisburg police officer working at the event, who was a Marine, and together, they accused Ford of being a fraud.
"He's not a real Marine!" the officer shouted to the crowd gathered for the PennLive/Patriot-News Artsfest of Greater Harrisburg. "Stolen valor!"
Then,
Quote:
On Thursday, Harrisburg Mayor Eric Papenfuse said police were investigating the police officer’s false “stolen valor” accusation against Ford.
In a news release, the mayor’s office said that Harrisburg Police Detective John O’Connor — “a former U.S. Marine and a decorated police detective” — “questioned Ford about his service” only after a U.S. Army veteran “demanded” that O’Connor investigate whether Ford was illegally impersonating a Marine for profit.
At that point, the news release said, “Ford became hostile” and said he wanted to lodge a complaint.
A police captain intervened, the release said, and was told by Ford that O’Connor had embarassed him.
“It is unfortunate that Mr. Ford was wrongly accused,” the mayor said, “but our initial findings indicate police officers acted appropriately and respectfully in this incident.”
Sorry, mayor, but you're dead wrong. For a police officer to publicly humiliate someone in front of a crowd based on suspicion is certainly neither "appropriate"--that's not how the police are supposed to carry out business--or respectful.
That officer owes that man a public apology, and the city might well owe him some money.
Quote:
But as of Wednesday night, no one had contacted Ford or apologized to him. Moody told PennLive he still was trying to confirm Ford's military status.
Anthony Flaynik, the commandant of the local detachment of the Marine Corps League, said his group was doing their own investigation into the police department's actions.
"He gives up his time volunteering for honor guard for veteran funerals every three weeks," Flaynik said of Ford. "He comes out in the rain, shine, hot, cold. We need to do what we can to help him."
Why is "service" in the armed forces a good thing even if it was a b.s. war in the first place? By extension, one could argue that because world peace would be a far superior state to the current one, it would be beneficial to all if no one, in any part of the world, signed up to fight in any war, ever.
Once one understands why war is a state to be avoided, how can one continue to defend the position that having people willing to go into a war is actually a good thing? I just don't get the whole honor the veterans stuff I see around me all the time, because the implicit assumption is that fighting is a good thing, right?
The problem is that war is really no different than a food fight in a cafeteria - only deadly and on a much larger scale. So if one thinks veterans should be honored, then perhaps it's a bit of a double standard to support disciplining schoolchildren in a food fight? And if throwing food to "get even" with another thrower is not acceptable, then why is killing off another nation's people any different?
I realize that there are non-violent activities one can go into such as the Peace Corps, but these are only a fraction of the total of those in the armed forces. Thus, pointing out that not all veterans were actually in the military doesn't really change the fact that a general and encompassing "high respect" for veterans has the effect of promoting war.
Quoted for most naïve thread/post of the year award.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
