Our soldiers

[Dan Hollister]

I'm writing this post because I am tired of reading anti-war threads that are also anti-soldier.

Regardless of whether a war is justified or not, anyone that puts their life at risk for our country is nothing less than a hero. Every soldier over there is a hero. It doesn't matter what the mission is, or if Bush is right or wrong. Anyone fighting in our armerd forces right now is a hell of lot braver than any of us.

I don't want to see this war end and have our soldiers end up like Vietnam. Have them spit on, disliked, forgotten. And if you don't think this is happening, soldiers have already been coming home and talking about the lack of support they are getting. Any soldier returning home should not be ridiculed, questioned, or despised. In fact, any soldier returning home should get nothing less than a "thank you" and a whole lot of respect.

So calm down. If you hate Bush, hate Bush. But praise our soldiers.

I dearly hope nobody has the nerve to argue with this.

[GhostsDaddy]

I have nothing but respect for the soldiers themselves.

I cannot respect the fact that they are willing to support a cause that is so obviously a poor choice.

[Rebs]

I absolutely respect the soldiers. I would never have the guts to do that.

[commatosa]

I love the troops. There is nothing more valuable than an American soldier. That's why we should bring them home. And I used to support Bush like 5 years ago, until he sent a ton of my friends (among thousands of others) into an unnecessary war.

[nateisawesome]

I couldn't have said that any better.

[cantnokdahustle]

I'm writing this post because I am tired of reading anti-war threads that are also anti-soldier.

Regardless of whether a war is justified or not, anyone that puts their life at risk for our country is nothing less than a hero. Every soldier over there is a hero. It doesn't matter what the mission is, or if Bush is right or wrong. Anyone fighting in our armerd forces right now is a hell of lot braver than any of us.

I don't want to see this war end and have our soldiers end up like Vietnam. Have them spit on, disliked, forgotten. And if you don't think this is happening, soldiers have already been coming home and talking about the lack of support they are getting. Any soldier returning home should not be ridiculed, questioned, or despised. In fact, any soldier returning home should get nothing less than a "thank you" and a whole lot of respect.

So calm down. If you hate Bush, hate Bush. But praise our soldiers.

I dearly hope nobody has the nerve to argue with this.

The blame is certainly most placed at the top of the government. Fuck! how long will it take the united states to apologize for agent orange? but, a few cases in history have shown that the soldiers, certainly under massive amounts of stress brought on by the actions of the government, have been driven to commit some terribly bloody events. The Mai lai massacre in viet nam is probably the most notable.

Though i may not completely blame them (the soldiers), i refuse to praise them under these circumstances.

[Dan Hollister]

Do you honestly think the military is a place for free-thinkers to debate the ethics of what they're about to do? No. It's a place to follow orders. If you don't agree with them, too bad, you're not there for your ethical beliefs.

What happens if you're in the middle of a battle and you decide it's wrong? They won't relieve you of duty or court martial you, they will not hesitate to shoot you in the head if you're putting them in jeapardy. It may seem like an honorable thing for a soldier in Iraq to stand down and say he doesn't believe it, but in reality, a soldier actually doing that would just put his entire platoon at risk.

The military is, oddly enough, the only truly functioning branch of our government. This is in part because the soldiers do what they're told. The problem is, if the soldiers are allowed to protest the war in Iraq, they're also just as able to protest something that might actually be useful, or protest something they're afraid of, or protesting something they are personally against. But it does not matter if they are personally against something or not. The military functions wonderfully well, and it's due to the fact that soldiers follow orders.

If soldiers stopped following orders, and agreeing to the terms of their intentional voluntary enlistment, we'd be in a world of shit like never before. We'd suddenly have no way to defend ourselves. We'd be dead.

[zach]

Oh please! Signing your life away to the military doesn't entitle you to unconditonal love from anybody and everybody. If you don't want the soldiers to be disrespected than do something about the government that gives them orders. Otherwise you may as well spit on them too.

[getupkid53]

Not only are soldiers not getting respect, the senate keeps shooting down V.A. bills that will help with medical costs when wounded soldiers return. Even if it passed the senate, the president has no intention of supporting our troops, once they are no longer 'troops'. There is no pension plan for soldiers who lose limbs and can't work, or parapalegic's who will not be able to reach cupboard's or drive cars without special equipment. We listen to a government call soldiers hero's.... as long as they are in battle. When they return home, they are no different than the next welfare collecting family struggling to find employment.

[Ratherbedead22]

i fucking hate the soldiers.

[Cal Smith]

The blame is certainly most placed at the top of the government. Fuck! how long will it take the united states to apologize for agent orange? but, a few cases in history have shown that the soldiers, certainly under massive amounts of stress brought on by the actions of the government, have been driven to commit some terribly bloody events. The Mai lai massacre in viet nam is probably the most notable.

Though i may not completely blame them (the soldiers), i refuse to praise them under these circumstances.

Arent you somebody who wants to leave morals and religion out of politics?

[The Revisionist]

I have yet to meet somebody who dislikes the war as well as our soldiers.

[Lueda Alia]

Arent you somebody who wants to leave morals and religion out of politics?
What does that have to do with anything?


And I don't really know anyone that hates the soldiers. I know people that hate the war and goverment, but not the soldiers.

[Cal Smith]

What does that have to do with anything?


And I don't really know anyone that hates the soldiers. I know people that hate the war and goverment, but not the soldiers.

If you talk about apologizing for acts of war, loss of life, and destruction you bring in morality to the situation. Many of you stress daily how morality does not belong in politics.

[Lueda Alia]

If you talk about apologizing for acts of war, loss of life, and destruction you bring in morality to the situation. Many of you stress daily how morality does not belong in politics.
um, no we don't. and your point still makes no sense to me.

[richter915]

how about no? I don't respect those "soldiers" who strip down prisoners and then humiliate them for their own amusement. Tell me what I should respect about that? I don't like soldiers who play that shitty drowning pool song before invading any area. I have no respect for those soldiers who are pretty much trigger happy inbred hicks (and I won't retract that because there are those).

and don't pull that "you can't look at the minority" shit cause that argument is overused too. ya, best trained army in the world my ass.

[Cal Smith]

how about no? I don't respect those "soldiers" who strip down prisoners and then humiliate them for their own amusement. Tell me what I should respect about that? I don't like soldiers who play that shitty drowning pool song before invading any area. I have no respect for those soldiers who are pretty much trigger happy inbred hicks (and I won't retract that because there are those).

and don't pull that "you can't look at the minority" shit cause that argument is overused too. ya, best trained army in the world my ass.

Have you thought it might be overused because it's true...............

[Lueda Alia]

Have you thought it might be overused because it's true...............
Like the word "WMDs" was?

[richter915]

Have you thought it might be overused because it's true...............
no I mean overused as in it's wrong to do that yet people continue using it. Why should there be a double standard? People will overlook the minority of assholes in the army but they will constantly piss and moan about "dam imgrunt steelin mah job".

[cantnokdahustle]

Arent you somebody who wants to leave morals and religion out of politics?

morals and religion are two very seperate things, and perhaps you are confusing morals with ethics.

[radiofriendly]

how about no? I don't respect those "soldiers" who strip down prisoners and then humiliate them for their own amusement. Tell me what I should respect about that? I don't like soldiers who play that shitty drowning pool song before invading any area. I have no respect for those soldiers who are pretty much trigger happy inbred hicks (and I won't retract that because there are those).

and don't pull that "you can't look at the minority" shit cause that argument is overused too. ya, best trained army in the world my ass.
are you gonna hold that against the entire army of the United States? how much do you really think that represents? what minority argument are you talking about? there's plenty more angles to the military then everybody sees on the news and on lifetime movies.

[Dan Hollister]

Richter915, the soldiers you're referring to don't even make up a tenth of a percent of our troops over there. You're talking about a handful of soldiers, not the whole army.

I still say to everyone who doesn't want to respect the troops - they have no choice. Being in the Army is not the same as being a private civilian in the United States. You can not go around protesting and picketing and being pissed off. Moral debates cannot happen. Our military functions well because it is based entirely on leadership and because they follow orders. You cannot have a military that protests. If that happened, suddenly we'd have every country in the world launching attacks at us because there'd be nothing we could do about it.

Plus you have to keep in mind that the vast majority of soldiers involved in this war signed up before Bush declared war. And once you're in, you can't leave, so you can't blame the soldiers for being there.

And also as I said before (that everyone chose to ignore) think about what would happen if a solder in Iraq protested the war. Um, theyre IN IRAQ! If they're taking fire, and some soldiers decide the war isn't justified, suddenly they're putting the lives of the army at risk. When you're here, you can protest whatever you want. But when you're in the army in the middle of war, any protest, disagreements, moral debates, etc are irrelavent, and do nothing but weaken the United States.

[apoemtothedead]

Richter915, the soldiers you're referring to don't even make up a tenth of a percent of our troops over there.

And illegal immigrants account for less than a tenth of a percent of workers in California, yet they're "stealing" all of our jobs?

[USAFDave]

Dan... thanks :)

[Cal Smith]

morals and religion are two very seperate things, and perhaps you are confusing morals with ethics.

not confusing them because they are the same thing, ethics and morals both deal with the good/bad decisions of people

basically do you feel then morals should be considered in poltiics?

no I mean overused as in it's wrong to do that yet people continue using it. Why should there be a double standard? People will overlook the minority of assholes in the army but they will constantly piss and moan about "dam imgrunt steelin mah job".

First no one is arguing immigrants here. The argument is you are taking no more than 20 or 30 soldiers in your examples (of the 200,000) or so soliders in Iraq alone and making a stupid assertion.

[Dan Hollister]

And illegal immigrants account for less than a tenth of a percent of workers in California, yet they're "stealing" all of our jobs?

There's 34 million people in California, total. There's 3 million illegals crossing the border, every year. Do the math on that one.

I also don't see why you would want to make any sort of analogy of illegal immigrants to the military. One group is illegally entering our country and causing problems, the other group is bravely fighting - and dying - for our freedom.

Now I ask seriously, do you honestly believe that every soldier out there fighting for our freedom is, in fact, just out there having a good time messing with Iraqis? You honestly don't think anyone's actually dying or getting shot at? You don't think there are soliders truly fighting for their lives? Fighting for us? Shame on you.

[apoemtothedead]

Now I ask seriously, do you honestly believe that every soldier out there fighting for our freedom is, in fact, just out there having a good time messing with Iraqis? You honestly don't think anyone's actually dying or getting shot at? You don't think there are soliders truly fighting for their lives? Fighting for us? Shame on you.

I don't recall saying that. Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

[Louballs]

For the record, on the original topic of this thread, I totally support the soldiers--in general--despite my disapproval of the war. I say "in general" because there are those assholes who manage to make themselves look bad, make the U.S. look bad, and hurt support for the rest of the troops at home (i.e. Abu Ghraib, those corpse-burning assholes, etc.). Those individuals are worthless fucks, who shouldn't be allowed to represent the U.S. in the armed forces, except for the fact that they make such good cannon fodder. With those exceptions, I whole-heartedly support the troops.

As for how many of those asshole redneck soldiers there are, well, I don't know . . .

The argument is you are taking no more than 20 or 30 soldiers in your examples (of the 200,000) or so soliders in Iraq alone and making a stupid assertion.
But Cal does, so I'm sure he can give me a list. Unless he's just making an assertion.

[SK_mo]

Like the word "WMDs" was?
sorry to burst your bubble Eda but a weapon of mass destruction technically accounts for any weapon that can cause injury to more than one person in a single given shot....technically a shot gun is a WMD....and we did find them.

[Lueda Alia]

sorry to burst your bubble Eda but a weapon of mass destruction technically accounts for any weapon that can cause injury to more than one person in a single given shot....technically a shot gun is a WMD....and we did find them.
I'm sure that's not what the government meant by "WMD's" when they also mentioned, "a mushroom cloud over our country...." or something along those lines.

[Cal Smith]

For the record, on the original topic of this thread, I totally support the soldiers--in general--despite my disapproval of the war. I say "in general" because there are those assholes who manage to make themselves look bad, make the U.S. look bad, and hurt support for the rest of the troops at home (i.e. Abu Ghraib, those corpse-burning assholes, etc.). Those individuals are worthless fucks, who shouldn't be allowed to represent the U.S. in the armed forces, except for the fact that they make such good cannon fodder. With those exceptions, I whole-heartedly support the troops.

As for how many of those asshole redneck soldiers there are, well, I don't know . . .


But Cal does, so I'm sure he can give me a list. Unless he's just making an assertion.

who said i knew............? i simply said that in his examples which involved maybe 20-30 soldiers he was able to sum up the entire military. sorry i have no list

[Dan Hollister]

On a sidenote, for anyone else who wishes to talk down on the military using the Abu Ghraib nonsense, I encourage you to consider these little details about how the media is twisting the truth.

In Vietnam, there was, of course, the terrible My Lai Massacre where hundreds of innocent people were murdered. The reporter Seymour Hersh is the one who broke the story.

Now over 30 years later, when Abu Ghraib happened, the media thought this would be a great time to make a ludicrous comparison between this and My Lai.

Frank Rich of the New York Times wrote, "It was in November 1969 that a little-known reporter, Seymour Hersh, broke the story of the 1968 massacre at My Lai, the horrific scoop that has now found its match 35 years later in Mr. Hersh's New Yorker revelation of a 53-page Army report detailing 'numerous instances of sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuse' at Abu Ghraib."

Met their match, huh? Really? Murdering hundreds of people, versus making a few Iraqis undress themselves?

Paul Krugman, also of the New York Times, wrote, "Seymour Hersh is exposing My Lai all over again."

Hooray. This is how bad people believe this crap that the media likes to spew. I very strongly urge anyone to not make blatantly ignorant posts relating Abu Ghraib to anything. It almost seems like some people in this country would rather have our soldiers die instead of the insurgents who are shooting at them.

[Louballs]

On a sidenote, for anyone else who wishes to talk down on the military using the Abu Ghraib nonsense, I encourage you to consider these little details about how the media is twisting the truth.

Now over 30 years later, when Abu Ghraib happened, the media thought this would be a great time to make a ludicrous comparison between this and My Lai.

Hooray. This is how bad people believe this crap that the media likes to spew. I very strongly urge anyone to not make blatantly ignorant posts relating Abu Ghraib to anything. It almost seems like some people in this country would rather have our soldiers die instead of the insurgents who are shooting at them.
1. Pictures don't lie. Maybe the media exaggerated the extent of the conduct; but even if it was one incident, that's still too much.
2. Is humiliation as bad as mass murder? Probably not. But I for one don't quantify shitty treatment of other human beings. If someone stripped you, put you on a leash, and dragged you around taking pictures of you, I don't think you'd find much solace in the fact that "at least they didn't kill you." Stupid, inhumane behavior is stupid, inhumane behavior, and no less so because it is somehow "less inhumane" than other stupid, inhumane behavior.
3. Frowning upon the behavior of particular soldiers does not equate to preferring that U.S. soldiers die instead of insurgents.

who said i knew............? i simply said that in his examples which involved maybe 20-30 soldiers he was able to sum up the entire military. sorry i have no list
Apologies; I thought you were giving us the number of "trigger happy rednecks," or however it was put. Jab retracted.

[cantnokdahustle]

not confusing them because they are the same thing, ethics and morals both deal with the good/bad decisions of people

basically do you feel then morals should be considered in poltiics?


they do "deal with" the "good" and "bad" completely subjective decisions that people make, but they sure as hell are not the "same thing."

morality is The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
ethics deal with reality; ethics plugs in sociology with morality. The study of the general nature of morals and of the specific moral choices to be made by a person.

do i feel morals should be considered in politics?
yes, but:
who's morals?
those who believe in a deity and base morality upon a system of rewards and punishments. Absofuckinglutely not!
I am certainly biased as secular morality is more my cup of tea, particularly secular humanism.

Do soldiers have an ethical responsibility to refuse orders? Yes.

[richter915]

are you gonna hold that against the entire army of the United States? how much do you really think that represents? what minority argument are you talking about? there's plenty more angles to the military then everybody sees on the news and on lifetime movies.
never said I was...I said I won't respect THOSE SOLDIERS (do not they not teach people how to read in Texas?)...

as for the other soldiers...eh, respect or not, they're still killers (and so are the insurgents they're fighting)...I guess I just have no respect for people who have to kill in general...even if it's necessary...I'm one of those kinds of people. If you don't get what I mean, I'll try and clarify it.

First no one is arguing immigrants here. The argument is you are taking no more than 20 or 30 soldiers in your examples (of the 200,000) or so soliders in Iraq alone and making a stupid assertion.
That was a comparison to the hypocricy of those who are pro-war. I know I know, it's "only a handful" but that handful does have the potential to sully the respect and honor of our armed forces...and it's done just that (in my case)...I feel that that "handful" should not exist...I don't think you understand that...and for the actions of the few, I've lost some respect for the whole.

And you make the assertion of 20 or 30...that's based on what we know...the fact that that happens and cases have been made public...it leads me to think that more happens that we won't know about.

[radiofriendly]

never said I was...I said I won't respect THOSE SOLDIERS (do not they not teach people how to read in Texas?)...
just asking questions, actually. never made any accusations. it's all my texas edumacation has offered me. and just to clarify, when you end your argument by saying "best trained army my ass" you really send out the vibe that you associate "those" soldiers with the rest of the military. take a deep breath man.

[A picasso blue]

morals and religion are two very seperate things, and perhaps you are confusing morals with ethics.
part of my "belief" in atheism is the frustration that people will insist on confusing religion with morals, as in if you do not follow religious teachings, you are lacking of any moral judgement.


and by the way to all those people hating the soldiers, shut up. i dont like the war either. but opinions like that are hurting the democrats' image worse than Michael Moore

[radiofriendly]

as for the other soldiers...eh, respect or not, they're still killers (and so are the insurgents they're fighting)...I guess I just have no respect for people who have to kill in general...even if it's necessary...I'm one of those kinds of people.
cmon man, it was only foundation for the creation of this country. unless your going to preach that if we all fought without bloodshed we wouldn't still be under british tyranny. and if you're not, your still going to show no respect for those that have died for this country when we needed them? give me a break. if i need more clarity from your argument, please embellish, because im hoping i just don't understand your argument.

[richter915]

cmon man, it was only foundation for the creation of this country. unless your going to preach that if we all fought without bloodshed we wouldn't still be under british tyranny. and if you're not, your still going to show no respect for those that have died for this country when we needed them? give me a break. if i need more clarity from your argument, please embellish, because im hoping i just don't understand your argument.
no I know what you mean...and you can argue that without war and guns, the British wouldn't have been able to colonize the Americas...and that Rome would've existed forever...or that there was no Mongol empire and Napoleon was just a myth...war is a necessary evil...but this war is unnecessary...or rather, another war should be fought now...but no matter what people are being killed. Have you heard the phrase "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"? Don't you think that it holds true now in the minds of Iraqis...yes to us we liberated them...but what about the family members of the hundreds of thousands that're dead? So in a sense I can say that the actions of our "heroes" will lead to the next generation of Arab terrorists who will find worse ways to attack us.

I can't respect a person who kills, just or not...it's just hard to. I mean, you end the life of your enemy...but that enemy has a wife and kids too...and yes his death makes my life safer, but his family's life is worse now...ya I guess I'm being overly sympathetic and should just focus on the immediate good a soldier's actions does for me...but I can't.

Now there's a difference between showing respect for soldiers and respect for the dead. I don't have an opinion on that yet but that's not the topic anyway.

[A picasso blue]

On a sidenote, for anyone else who wishes to talk down on the military using the Abu Ghraib nonsense, I encourage you to consider these little details about how the media is twisting the truth.

In Vietnam, there was, of course, the terrible My Lai Massacre where hundreds of innocent people were murdered. The reporter Seymour Hersh is the one who broke the story.

Now over 30 years later, when Abu Ghraib happened, the media thought this would be a great time to make a ludicrous comparison between this and My Lai.

Frank Rich of the New York Times wrote, "It was in November 1969 that a little-known reporter, Seymour Hersh, broke the story of the 1968 massacre at My Lai, the horrific scoop that has now found its match 35 years later in Mr. Hersh's New Yorker revelation of a 53-page Army report detailing 'numerous instances of sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuse' at Abu Ghraib."

Met their match, huh? Really? Murdering hundreds of people, versus making a few Iraqis undress themselves?

Paul Krugman, also of the New York Times, wrote, "Seymour Hersh is exposing My Lai all over again."

Hooray. This is how bad people believe this crap that the media likes to spew. I very strongly urge anyone to not make blatantly ignorant posts relating Abu Ghraib to anything. It almost seems like some people in this country would rather have our soldiers die instead of the insurgents who are shooting at them.
regardless of whether or not it reflects the behavior of every soldier, it is a terrible thing to have happened. and there's reports of similar incidents at Gitmo. and yet i myself do not hold this to the image of every soldier.

[radiofriendly]

no I know what you mean...and you can argue that without war and guns, the British wouldn't have been able to colonize the Americas...and that Rome would've existed forever...or that there was no Mongol empire and Napoleon was just a myth...war is a necessary evil...but this war is unnecessary...or rather, another war should be fought now...but no matter what people are being killed. Have you heard the phrase "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"? Don't you think that it holds true now in the minds of Iraqis...yes to us we liberated them...but what about the family members of the hundreds of thousands that're dead? So in a sense I can say that the actions of our "heroes" will lead to the next generation of Arab terrorists who will find worse ways to attack us.

I can't respect a person who kills, just or not...it's just hard to. I mean, you end the life of your enemy...but that enemy has a wife and kids too...and yes his death makes my life safer, but his family's life is worse now...ya I guess I'm being overly sympathetic and should just focus on the immediate good a soldier's actions does for me...but I can't.

Now there's a difference between showing respect for soldiers and respect for the dead. I don't have an opinion on that yet but that's not the topic anyway.
but wouldn't you agree that there is one detrimental difference in the ideologies of these seperate societies. i guess the argument you and i are using can go both ways forever, and you're right, it is a necessary evil, but you have to take into account that our ideology is to liberate while those of the terrorists we are fighting are to wipe out an inferior sect of people. now, you can certainly say that we are doing the same(i never saw the logic in that, it's simply a disagreement), but in this respect, it seems we are on the defense. these terrorists prey on men, women and children alike. their hatred will continue to grow if we leave, as it continued to grow before we came. and i can't seem to recall any two democratic nations that have ever gone to war with one another. i could be wrong, but i think this can all contribute to a positive cause for our presence in this war.

[lackofcolour 13]

Anyone that doesnt respect someone willing to give their life for their country is fairly narrowminded.

[Louballs]

Anyone that doesnt respect someone willing to give their life for their country is fairly narrowminded.
Perhaps you should choose another adjective . . .

narrow-minded, adj. - 1. Lacking tolerance, flexibility, breadth of view, or sympathy; 2. rigidly adhering to a particular sect or its doctrines.

Now . . . who's "narrow-minded?"

[richter915]

but wouldn't you agree that there is one detrimental difference in the ideologies of these seperate societies. i guess the argument you and i are using can go both ways forever, and you're right, it is a necessary evil, but you have to take into account that our ideology is to liberate while those of the terrorists we are fighting are to wipe out an inferior sect of people. now, you can certainly say that we are doing the same(i never saw the logic in that, it's simply a disagreement), but in this respect, it seems we are on the defense. these terrorists prey on men, women and children alike. their hatred will continue to grow if we leave, as it continued to grow before we came. and i can't seem to recall any two democratic nations that have ever gone to war with one another. i could be wrong, but i think this can all contribute to a positive cause for our presence in this war.
I see what you're saying but why should I show respect for people killing others for a cause I don't believe in. You don't respect the insurgents because you say they want to do something you disagree with, right? That's why I can't fully respect all the US soldiers in Iraq because I disagree with their presence there. Put them in a different environment...I can have more respect for them there. I guess it's situational, it depends on whether I agree with them or not...and the way I see it now is hundreds of thousands of people (men, women, children, soldiers...people none the less) are dead for a cause I disagree with.

Perhaps you should choose another adjective . . .

narrow-minded, adj. - 1. Lacking tolerance, flexibility, breadth of view, or sympathy; 2. rigidly adhering to a particular sect or its doctrines.

Now . . . who's "narrow-minded?"
pwned