The military as guardians of freedom meme.

[arcadian]

I can not believe the people here who are proponents of this concept. And I've actually seen some post the "freedom isn't free" meme that I thought one would only see on freerepublic. The rights granted to me by the U.S. Constitution are inalienable rights, they are universal human rights that persons have by merely being born. They are personal and they are mine as they are yours. I don't presume to know what's best for you in regards to your rights and I expect the same in return.

The notion that my freedoms, my rights are being protected by somebody who I did not ask for protection or that these rights need protection by somebody other than myself destroys the core value of these rights which are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. It essentially makes me a subordinate to those who would presume to "protect my rights", requiring my acknowledgment of said so-called protection or thanks for a service I did not ask for.

Again I will say, my rights are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution not by the barrel of a soldiers gun. I have no animosity for those who choose to serve in the military, but I view them as nothing more than government employees who happen to work for a department with whose policy objectives I am frequently at odds.

[BlooInBloo]

1. Eh, they're a bit more than *just* government employees, due to the risks they're subjected to....

But in the large, I mostly agree. Especially when vets talk about non-vets' opinions not mattering, since they haven't served in the military. Those folks can fuck off.

But vets who aren't like that deserve respect for the risk they and their families undertake.

[wmbrew0206]

2. Let see how long you would have the freedoms granted to you by the constitution

if there weren't people around to enforce the laws that keep those freedoms in place.

I'm pretty sure the people of France would lived through WWII will tell you that the US Military helped ensure their freedom.

[JackRiddler]

11. But what will the peasants of Vietnam say?

The ones who were bombed by John McCain, for example? The ones who are still poisoned by Agent Orange?

The US was attacked in World War II and righteously fought back.

Care to justify its foreign policies since as "preserving freedom"?

What about the "war on terror"? Do you understand that your rhetoric is exactly what is being used to justify the rape of Iraq - that it's to "defend our freedoms"?

The military patriot-fetishists of any country see every foreign "threat" to their freedom, no matter how ephemeral, and at the same time they are blind to the threat to freedom that is by far the most common and dire in every nation, the one that comes from their own government, their own ruling classes, their own militaries.

Why did the Bill of Rights include a second amendment based in the understanding that the people might want to overthrow the government again one day? Or a third amendment, against being forced to quarter soldiers? What was up with that, didn't they know those soldiers protect them? Madison said the greatest threat to freedom was not the English crown but a standing army, why is that?

[davepc]

46. our rights don't come from a piece of paper

the bill of rights grants nothing. It enumerates existing rights.

[bryant69]

3. Those rights can be taken away, though. We've seen it over and over again in history

Think of our own shameful history with Slavery.

I should stop here and say the War in Iraq was a ghastly mistake, and the forthcoming war with Iran will be worse.

But there have been historically nations that preyed on other nations - we've been one of those nations (although our history isn't as bad as some other nations one could mention).

You can talk about inalienable rights all you want, but unless God himself or the Universe or whatever is willing to defend those rights, they exist because we protect them. And Soldiers are part of that protection - they can be misused, and it's up to us as citizens and civilians to see that that doesn't happen.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[gratuitous]

50. Odd, but . . .

You know, when I was getting pushed around by the cops for peacefully petitioning the government for redress of grievances, I didn't see one soldier, one sailor, one marine, or one airman running to intervene. They must have been busy with something else, I guess. And they must be an awfully preoccupied lot, because I've never, ever seen a military person in the line of duty engaged in the actual defense of anyone's rights anywhere at anytime.

But they tell me over and over again that it happens; I've just never seen it.

[Hobarticus]

4. Meh....not worth getting worked up over

The military's a shitty fuckin' life. Terrible pay, lousy home life, and on top of it, you get sent to shitholes to kill or be killed by people you have no personal grudge with.

True, it's a choice they make, sometimes willingly and eagerly, but I for one am glad and personally thankful that they are willing to do it. Which to me, makes their job that much more worthy of respect. Doesn't mean I respect what they're ordered to do, just that they do it. Referring to them as mere "government employees" is pretty disrespectful and obnoxious, in my opinion.

I have several friends, Army and Marine, who have been back and forth already. They love their job but hate this goddamned war. Imagine wrestling with that career agnst.

If a soldier says it and believes it to make what they do for a living worthwhile, then so be it. I know it isn't true, for a myriad of reasons like you listed.

If a soldier's family says it...well, if they believe it, it's no skin off my nose to indulge them that.

If a civilian says it, I just roll my eyes and pity their ignorance of our Constitution.

But I guess I'm not about to tell some private or marine humping three tours in Iraq, while also trying to raise a family on a salary just above the poverty line, that he isn't making sacrifices for me and that he's little more than a government employee, y'know?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

5. I always bristle whenever I hear that "freedom isn't free" meme

Particularly whenever it is used to (somehow) justify our UNPROVOKED and ILLEGAL invasion occupation of Iraq. While I would agree that during WW2 the entire world and, potentially, the future prospect of democratic governance in general definitely faced what seemed to be a genuine threat of domination by the ORIGINAL "Axis of Evil", specifically Germany, Italy, and Japan. I would argue that this meme would probably also have been appropriate during the decades long standoff with the Soviet Union whose outcome could've not only been the conquest of our country but also the literal end of our species' existence. Trying to apply the "freedom isn't free" meme to any present day situation (i.e. Iraq, Iran), however makes it just seem hollow and meaningless, particularly since the only genuine "threat" to "freedom" that the world faces today is a ragtag band of terrorist cells that, while certainly dangerous and capable of a lot of chaos and mayhem (although not quite on the level that some people would like to have us believe), are not capable of invading other countries and overthrowing governments like...um....we are.

[mainer]

6. The military is like a tool. Used badly, it does harm.

I don't see that we can affix "good" or "evil" labels to an army. They're a tool, like a hammer or a gun. It's the person wielding it that bears responsibility for the damage.

[KG]

7. when i hear the 'military as guardians of freedom' meme

this image come to mind.



let's not forget, the military serves power, not the people.

[LanternWaste]

9. I always think of this image when I hear the word 'military' bandied about.

I always think of this image when I hear the "guardians of freedom" theme getting discussed...

[Echo In Light]

48. I agree, and yes, they're obedient to power, not the people

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. Well, you are on the internet.

There are some very stupid people on the internet.

[JackRiddler]

13. Hey - DARPA sacrificed so that we could enjoy our freedom on the Internet.

Good thing the stupid people are on the Internet, that way there are none in real life.

Oops.

[TeamsterDem]

10. Rights "guaranteed" by a document are quite precarious, are they not?

The current bullshit war notwithstanding, but are you going to - what? - sue a foreign invader for "rights guaranteed" to you by our Constitution? Had Hitler found his way over here in the 1940s I'm fairly certain you'd rethink the source of the guarantee of your rights. In truth there are two sources: The Constitution for disputes with the government; the military for disputes with foreign aggressors.

The "freedom isn't free" motto is much more than mere "meme" unless it's applied to the current disaster. Then again, those of us who served know that firsthand.

[JackRiddler]

12. Rights "defended" by a leviathan corporate military-police state are already dead, are they not?

And the justification for this beast comes in propaganda about how the military "serves" to "defend" your freedom.

World War Two is over. Don't you think it's kind of revealing that this is the example you guys always reach for?

Tell us, who is the foreign threat to the United States now? Can you name a foreign threat that the United States itself did not create through its short-sighted and greedy policies? And how do all the foreign threats combined stack up to the threat posed to freedom by our own government?

[TeamsterDem]

14. The US military doesn't set the policy which you're referencing

That's the province of the US State Department, CIA, and president. Don't blame a grunt for policies set by some Washington politician.

And yes WWII is over. How'd that one come to a close? Lawsuits, was it? No, I seem to recall there being quite a heavy military conflict. Am I wrong? Nope, don't think I am. I believe the US military went ahead and ended that one, defending our freedom in the process. That is, unless you think Hitler planned to stop at Russia.

Who's the foreign threat? Al Qaeda, for one. China being another. How do they "stack up?" For one you're conflating a few things, namely the US military with the expansion of government police power - police powers not conferred on the US military. Sorry, but the military ain't the bad guy here.

[JackRiddler]

15. The grunt isn't the point

If you criticize Monsanto, you don't get all these former Monsanto employees running in here to talk about how they sacrificed for the greater good.

The military IS the brass who sit and make plans for nuking everywhere. And who are going to get jobs as "consultants" with the contractors, i.e. the corporations who actually run the Pentagon.

Unfortunately, there is no shortage of volunteers who, often for noble reasons, are suckered into joining the imperial forces. All they do is obey orders. Too bad for them.

Al Qaeda, insofar as it is not a phantom made up for suckers, is certainly the product of United States policy. Having invested billions to help create it as the result of a stupid policy (to support the most backward elements in Afghanistan), it's still not a problem that justifies keeping a military

WITH MORE RESOURCES THAN ALL THE OTHER MILITARIES ON THE PLANET.

And if you want to defend against angry Arabs who want to kill Americans, maybe you should

START BY NO LONGER BOMBING THEIR COUNTRIES YEAR-IN YEAR-OUT.

Again, you use World War 2 as your fig leaf. Get over it. The US was attacked, and it fought back. For the one time in all history, I would have joined the Army myself.

Maybe even that wouldn't have happened if certain elites here had not themselves supported Hitler. At least it wasn't directly the government setting up Hitler back then, only industrialists and bankers like Ford and Harriman and Dulles and Bush.

What should have followed would have been war crimes that also included the Nazis and fellow travelers in high places in the United States. Maybe Roosevelt would have done that.Instead, Nazis were invited in to help create the CIA, and the Nazi supporters became the architects of the postwar world order.

It's time for you to fast forward from your nostalgia for the Good War. Today there is NO MILITARY THREAT to the United States that it doesn't pimp and create itself. War is obsolete, which is why enemies need inventing.

[TeamsterDem]

16. Wow what a tall load of manure

Public servants can hardly be compared to private corporation's employees. Why? Because public servants are paid fractional wages, especially so in the case of an enlisted person. Enlisted personnel don't join the military because the "fringes" will be so wonderful or because the hours are great. Nope. We sign up because of a sense of duty to the country, a sense of wanting to be a part of something bigger than one's own self. I'm sure Monsanto employees feel a sense of duty to Monsanto, but I think we can probably agree that such a sense is dwarfed by comparison to the enlisted person's affinity to their country.

As is often the case with non-military pontificators, you fundamentally misunderstand that the military is not the brass, it's the enlisted people. Were it not for the enlisted would anything get done? Could the 4 star write up the plans, load the bombs, fuel the jet, and pilot her all the way to the target - refueling a few times in flight - then hit the target and return (all by himself)? Simply: no. And generals don't just make war plans for shits and giggles. They make them at the instruction of civilian leaders - the ones you're correctly bemoaning for their policy direction.

By failing to differentiate between the grunts and the civilian leaders you're offending every person who was duty-bound enough to volunteer. That, I think, is a damn shame. And it greatly speaks to your willingness to broadly opine about things of which you haven't the slightest clue. Another shame, but that's your cross to bear.

As to Al Qaeda being a phantom: Uhh okay. Yet more evidence of you having never seen their ugliness up close. I did way back in 1993 in the Mogue. The rounds that were coming overhead sure didn't seem to be phantoms, but no doubt you've got some glib assessment - one made from the safety of your home - which will "show me the light." Too bad for my friends who died over there, though, that they won't get the wonderful opportunity to hear your stirring oratory on how their wounds are "phantoms."

While Al Qaeda is most certainly a creation of US foreign policy, I'm again compelled (simply by factual dint) to remind you that the military doesn't set foreign policy. We're a tool which is sometimes wielded poorly, much like now. But we're not the operator of the tool. Blame the carpenter not the hammer.

You can go ahead and pine for the days where no military exists, and presumably where everyone gathers 'round the campfire and strums the guitar to the tune of kumbaya. Those sound like great days. Problem is it's about as in touch with reality as Bush's vision of the world just in a completely reverse orientation; just because you're on the opposite side of that madman doesn't necessarily make you right. But you keep telling yourself that you are - making sure to glibly share your delusions with the rest of us (we require humor, you know). Good luck with that. As much as I want universal health care I hate to see the bill you run up for the extra large sized drums of Thorazine you so desperately (and obviously) require. Have a good one all the same.

[JackRiddler]

17. Wow. The "Mogue" eh?

Typical: Facts don't matter, only veterans who have had the buzz of bullets over their heads know what matters, everyone else is armchair Kumbaya egghead moaner hippies, blah blah.

So you were in the expeditionary force that had no business in Somalia, and you got attacked by the people there? I'm sorry that happened. Were you part of the battle, in which 500-1000 Somalis were killed because they didn't want a foreign force there? I'm sorry for your buddies.

Did you ever give a thought to the Somalis who were killed, that they might believe they were doing the right thing just like you did?

And you were fighting "Al Qaeda," were you? Is that how you identified them at the time? In 1993? Did you know who Bin Ladin was? Did you know he was going to later (falsely) take credit for the work of the local Somali militias who brought down the Black Hawks?

I like this:

"Could the 4 star write up the plans, load the bombs, fuel the jet, and pilot her all the way to the target - refueling a few times in flight - then hit the target and return (all by himself)?"

Okay, you've convinced me. Couldn't happen without the personnel (nor could Monsanto implement policy without its own workers, but never mind).

So you're right. I wanted to agree that the grunts are not at fault, but as you put it the personnel doing all that are participants in the crime, insofar as they do not refuse their illegal orders. They may believe they have a higher justification. I'm sorry for them if so.

"And generals don't just make war plans for shits and giggles. They make them at the instruction of civilian leaders - the ones you're correctly bemoaning for their policy direction."

What is going on right now is not "policy" to "bemoan." It is aggressive, unprovoked, illegal and genocidal war, with the motive of plunder, on a nation that posed no threat, and never attacked or threatened the US. All citizens have a duty to resist, including soldiers who swore an oath to the Constitution, which is being violated in an undeclared war.

And no. Generals make war plans for every contingency they can possibly think of, and you know it. Generals do everything they can to justify their plans and grow their budgets, most of them don't seem to give a shit how much bullshit they sling if they can only get the budget.

Generals came up with Project Northwoods back in 1962, without being prompted by the civilian command (who rejected it). They had a pretext - the civilian command wanted to overthrow Castro - but they were happy to creatively expand on it.

"We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," they proposed; "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

"We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington," they wrote. "The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States..."

http://summeroftruth.org/northwoods.html

Generals aren't machines that get turned on by civilian authorities who ask them to make plans. They are active participants. They go out there and find justifications for all the war plans. Plenty of them then get jobs with contractors or become politicians and profit off the war plans. And they all know by the time they are generals that this is how the system works.

You may want to pretend there is some kind of perfect firewall between the civilian command, the corporate contractors and an ever-growing military armed with patriotic ideology (no matter how great the crimes its members abet and commit). But that is not the case.

Let's just face it: After Vietnam there was a class of people who would still join the imperial military that had the blood of two million Indochinese on its hands, and then there was a class who would never do so. Those who did join didn't want to commit crimes or fight for empire, they honestly believed as you do. So I'm sorry you are among those who believed all the justifying bullshit and signed up, but that does not qualify only you to speak and others to be dismissed. (And prescribed thorazine? No thanks, I'd prefer LSD.) ;)

And though I do think it's bullshit, I don't think you think so. I don't doubt your motives are genuine and noble, so return the favor. Thank you.

[TeamsterDem]

19. Hmmm

I never said facts don't matter. In fact that'd be your calling card. I never said or implied that only military personnel know "what matters." What I said is that only military personnel know what it's like. Quite the difference, now isn't it?

As to the MEU having "no business" in Somalia, and the further stretch that the "Somali people didn't want us there": That's quite a definitive statement from someone who wasn't there, now isn't it? The facts are these: We were sent to an impoverished nation with the mission to feed them. Our weapons were unloaded (on orders). We started taking fire from Aidid's militia who was trying to rob the food deliveries for redistribution to his troops. After much complaining to Washington by our field commanders we finally got permission to fire back WHEN FIRED UPON, but at no other time. As that progressed Aidid's forces began conducting brazen raids into outlying areas which forced us to do one of two things: Either flee (thus cutting off the food aid to the starving population) or conduct raids to apprehend or kill those responsible. Bill Clinton elected for the latter (himself being one of these "heroic" folks who dodged the Vietnam draft). You might want to learn the facts of what you're talking about PRIOR to talking about it. Better yet you might want to get a little experience in something before pretending to be an expert.

How did we know it was Al Qaeda? Well, being a guy who tends to trust people when they tell me something (unless I have reason to distrust them), I believe those captured on the battlefield when they told us who was backing their efforts. After all, why would they lie? Most of us hadn't a clue as to what in the world an Al Qaeda was, so it's not as if this was some great cop out. You can stick to your story of OBL developing some post-dated responsibility for Somalia but I think I'll stick to the stories of captured fighters. After all, they were there. You weren't.

And it's pure bullshit that troops always have perfect knowledge about every mission they're assigned to. Sorry, but military life isn't full of leisure time to hit up "The Google" (as Bush would put it) and check into everything - something you'd know had you served. It's a basic fallacy in economics that holds true here, the false assumption of perfect knowledge. If the troops don't have perfect knowledge then it's a sad joke to think they should refuse orders because they don't have the perfect knowledge to ascertain every order's legality. Further, they don't have the expertise or time to investigate the contours of international law, but you're directly charging them with that responsibility. That's bullshit and you know it.

And no, generals do not make plans for every contingency on the face of the globe UNTIL they're faced with that contingency. The CIA develops information on countries which is only used at a later date when some crisis emerges. How do I know that's true? Simple logic would suggest that a general can't make a plan for Iran and then depend on some other general at some other future point in time to abide by that plan. That just doesn't make sense because on-the-ground changes occur frequently, or at least frequently enough to render plans moribund. So who directs generals to draw up strike plans? Civilian leaders. That's who you should blame. But when the hammer swung by a drunk carpenter goes through the drywall, you're blaming the hammer. Unbelievable.

Of course military vets aren't the only ones who can speak about military issues. But much like a smart guy once said "you're entitled to your opinion but not your own facts." And as was made abundantly clear by your foolishness with respect to Somalia, you've proven you want to license facts to make an ideological point. But what's almost even worse is that you're trying to make that point while having absolutely no currency whatsoever in the field you're so broadly and glibly speaking of. That's not to say you can't speak, but it is to say that yours is a voice of a stateside non-combatant whose closest relationship to that of which he or she is speaking is Google.

[JackRiddler]

23. I don't ever blame hammers.

Hammers can't refuse orders. People can. It's a shame when they think they are a hammer. That's what had Dr. Einstein so upset.

I give people credit for more brains, in or out of the military. It's ironic you want to use ignorance as a blanket excuse for military personnel, while also claiming the superior understanding for yourself.

I don't doubt military personnel are very, very busy, so please don't infer things I didn't imply. Nevertheless, the invasion propaganda took many months, and now it's five years later. Anyone by now who hasn't figured out the Iraq invasion is unconstitutional and illegal doesn't really have a lack of leisure time in which to research it as an excuse. If you're saying they're content not to know what they are doing and just to follow orders -- to be a "hammer" instead of a human -- well then perhaps we agree after all.

Somalia was not a humanitarian intervention, it was advertised as such - to the world, and more importantly, to you. I have no doubt you were bringing food to starving people, but why were you chosen to do it just then and there, when there are people starving elsewhere too? The same money could have saved a lot more people if invested in civilian action to alleviate a famine outside a warzone, no?

Sadly I'll speculate, since Bush didn't send me the memo. In fact, the Bush Sr. White House memos have been kept under wraps illegally for the last four years by the present Bush regime, and the Reagan memos illegally for eight years.

I think the idea was, after the 92 election loss of Bush, to leave a poison pill for the incoming Clinton. You may not have known it, but those who ordered you to go there must have known Aidid's forces would move against your presence. And they knew that inevitably, Clinton would be forced early in his term either to escalate into another unwinnable war, or to suffer the spectacle of being a "draft dodger" who was withdrawing a military force. It was Bush who played with your lives, but your words seem to harbor a far greater resentment against the "draft dodger."

But what you say about "al Qaeda" is very interesting. Why don't we stop arguing and you tell that story, about how you captured Aidid fighters. And then they told you they were - what? Supported or organized by al Qaeda, by bin Ladin? If you don't consider it confidential or classified, I'm curious.

---

PS - Perhaps you'd be surprised what I read besides Google, or what first-hand accounts I may have heard from others.

[TeamsterDem]

26. Feigned opacity is ugly

You've heard of analogies, right? You know that analogies are essentially comparisons which aren't perfectly similar but through certain lenses share some characteristics? I thought so. So your feigned (and strained) effort to paint me as suggesting the military is dumb (like a hammer) is preposterous. I said they're a foreign policy tool, then compared that "tool-like" quality to a carpenter's hammer. It's not really a mystifying concept.

While you're right that planning and ratcheting for Iraq took a while, so too did training. Did you think the military was sitting 'round the TV watching Crossfire? Nope. We were in the hills of San Diego conducting wargames and honing tactics. Again, lack of time breeds lack of ability to research every facet of every war. Color it any way you want, but the indisputable fact is that you've never toiled under the conditions you're characterizing, so your characterizations are necessarily guesses.

Why don't the current service members refuse duty? Some have. Most feel a deep sense of commitment to their "brothers" in arms and would sooner die than refuse to be by their sides (again something you'd know if you were in). Does that sense of duty perhaps perpetuate an illegal war? If contorted the right way, perhaps. But it's awfully elitist and blowhard-ish of you to say so conclusively what these people should and shouldn't do considering you've never been there and done that.

And again I note that you're still willing to expound on things for which all you've got is Google to back up. Interesting. Tell me, were you there? Did you hand out any food? Did you go to other less-publicized nations and also distribute food there? If you had then you'd know WE DID go to other nations and do precisely what we tried to do in Somalia, the difference being that we weren't shot at so it wasn't newsworthy. But you evidently know everything - just ask you - so no doubt you know the other nations I visited and delivered humanitarian supplies to. I mean, you were never actually at any of these places, but that certainly qualifies you as an authority above and beyond someone who was, right? Riiiigggghhhhttt.

As to who sent us and what their motivations were, I don't pretend to know - although it's comforting to see that once again you do. All I know is what I experienced. All you know is everything you didn't. Strange qualification, but it's solidly yours nonetheless.

With respect to the captured Aidid forces there are more stories than I can share - all of which are open information; I wouldn't quote classified info on a public discussion board. And there's Michael Durant's story of having Bin Laden's picture in the de facto "prison" (actually just a house) in which he was held. And the pictures of Bin Laden in compounds we raided. And military intelligence (photos) of Muhammad Atef (Bin Laden's former military officer) in Mogadishu. And of course Bin Laden's admission of involvement itself. Remember, Bin Laden usually doesn't take credit for things he wasn't involved in. I don't know why but that's his MO.

Not all of the Somali fighters were Al Qaeda conscripts or volunteers. Many were impoverished folks high on "Khat," others were simply religious zealots while still others were just soldiers in Aidid's militia. So while not all of them were Al Qaeda affiliates, it's simply ridiculous to think that there was no operational training and coordination going on; the detainees and commanders themselves have rebuked that idea. But ever the know-it-all, I'm sure you've got a much more "accurate" fix on things, right? After all, you weren't there but you DID check out some Google links.

[JackRiddler]

28. You've insulted me enough now.

Let's leave aside who introduced the analogy of military personnel as tools who can only ever do the bidding of the civilian command and never have agency of their own, since that's obvious.

You want to flaunt your military career as though it gives you special insight into the function of the military in the larger world, that's fine. It identifies you and your politics.

I'm glad you delivered food aid to places other than Somalia. It's too bad our country does that through soldiers as a means of justifying its power, rather than through civilian aid, but it's good that you fed people.

But you don't know shit about what I've learned, where I've been, who I know, or how I research. And seeing your penchant for misidentifying everything about me and others who reject the life of war, I'm not inclined to share anything about me with you.

What's clear is that you've been a part of this machine, and it appears you will always be a part of it in your mentality. Even in referring to the preparations for the present Iraq atrocity, you use the pronoun "we." Are you still in the military?

The function of the US military is obvious to the outsider, especially to everyone in the rest of the world who may be handicapped by their own national propaganda, but who can see right through yours.

You can deny it until your final breath, but the US military today does not exist to "serve" the people or to "defend freedom." It exists to defend and if possible expand an empire, to maintain the haves of the present world order, to swallow the discretionary federal budget, and to enrich the war industry which dominates American political economy and foreign policy.

In the process, the people involved in it get entangled in ambiguities on the ground and don't see it that way, usually try to do their best at something they believe is good. As you've described. So I attribute no evil motives to you. Go in peace.

[TeamsterDem]

37. I've "insulted" you, have I?

Or wouldn't it be more accurate to deduce that you've been reduced into arguing mischaracterizations (aka the only ones you're capable of seeing as you have NO firsthand knowledge of which to speak) because you've been called out as someone with absolutely no experience in the military, thus someone whose opinion on the subject has all the "lofty" currency of George W. Bush?

And I've "offended" you? Well tough shit jackass. That's what happens when you talk about soldiers as "suckers" and en masse Arab killers - characterizations which - had you ever bothered to don the uniform as opposed to securely planting your ass behind a computer screen and shooting off at the gaping mouth - you'd know are wrong. But yeah, I've "offended" you. If I have, good. You deserve it.

As to which of your characterizations are off target, I've already pointed out a few but I see you've delivered a few more - namely this bullshit about the US delivering food aid through the military "as a means of justifying its power." What a complete and utter crock of shit. We delivered food to the Somalis via the military BECAUSE the fucking country was in a state of civil war, and the UNISOM participants ALL contributed MILITARY assets to assist in food delivery under the auspices of the UNISOM mandate. If that was wrong, blame the UN, bigmouth; they're the ones who launched the operation.

I've never asked you to share anything about yourself. Frankly I don't care. What I do know is that you've never served in the military judging by your statements, specifically the one about WWII and how "even you" would've joined the Army for that. Being what you are (a non-military observer), you're simply not an expert on military operations and military life. How could you be? That's not an attack; just a statement of fact. I'm sure there are plenty of areas in which you're far more qualified than I, but unlike you I don't pretend or presume to intrude on your expertise in those areas (it's called not being a blowhard).

As to why a military man would use the pronoun "we," I again point to your lack of military service as the reasoning behind your confusion. If you'd ever served - especially in the Marine Corps - then you'd know "once a Marine always a Marine" is a cherished motto bestowed on those good enough to earn the title. Since I'll be a Marine until the day I die (under that motto) I'll always use the word we. I've earned that right. As to what I do now, that's frankly none of your concern. But it is ripely hypocritical for you to refuse any details on yourself - details which were never requested but denied anyway in some childish temper tantrum - but then presume to ask for mine. You familiar with the word "hypocrite," are ya? Might want to acquaint yourself with it; it defines you rather well in this case.

Perhaps the best example of your own blowhard nature coming front and center is your postulation that only those outside the military can see it for what it is. What a sick perversion of honesty and logic that is. Only those possessing no experience whatsoever in a particular field are capable of assessing it? Where in the world did you learn such a concept? That's the kind of thought which has us in these foreign interventions, the bullshit guiding principle that we know what's best for people in other countries because we can clearly see (as observers) what is wrong with them. But on top of that you have the nerve to deride a policy for which you're essentially approving of the underlying logic. Unreal.

Dude seriously, just politely excuse yourself and admit you haven't a clue as to what the fuck you're talking about. You've already demonstrated that to be painfully true, but acknowledgment of one's mistakes is always an honest intellectual exercise. You might give it a shot.

[JackRiddler]

42. This will be the end now...

.

You can't get past the most essential point here, which is that one doesn't have to be in the military to know what the military does, and what impact maintaining the military has on everyone and everything.

In fact, you make it obvious that as a military person you have little objectivity about this. You can't imagine a world without militaries and the inevitable next war, where the strong dictate and must stay strong to survive. You feel a loyalty to your comrades and a pride in your craft that at least partly blind you to the disastrous reality of a country permanently preparing for and waging wars around the world in the name of freedom. You also seem to have a raging contempt for those who don't experience or particularly honor the military life, and yet dare to have an opinion on it.

We all carry the costs of American military interventions in the world. We all pay taxes, and federal income tax in particular goes primarily to the military (plus interest on debt accrued mainly in past military actions). This is everyone's business. Everyone has the right to speak on it, and it's possible that those who were never in combat tend to be more sober parties in this debate.

You don't need to have been a Marine to understand how stupid and wasteful these trillion-dollar budgets are, how pointless and in fact counterproductive to real American interests the worldwide deployments and interventions, how insane the continuing stockpiling of nuclear weapons and the creation of next-generation nukes and the perpetual push to sell more arms to everyone in the world so that they can have more wars with each other. Basically, anything that justifies this machine - even when true, as in the case of the occasional humanitarian operation - serves to perpetuate these crippling consequences.

If the US hadn't spent 40 years fucking up the Middle East, 9/11 wouldn't have happened (and that's granting the official story).

I didn't say soldiers are bloodthirsty killers, and I guess few of them are - you'd know better, perhaps you'll tell us how many of your fellow soldiers you have met who are in fact psychopaths - but the US military is nevertheless the tool with which millions of people have been killed around the world, and with which the wealth of this formerly rich nation has been SQUANDERED, its reputation ruined, its name turned into a curse for a couple of billion people who see just cause to hate "us."

Any legitimacy it may have had as a defense force ended with Vietnam. When the US intervenes anywhere militarily outside its borders where it is undesired, with what standing please? Where comes its moral right?

Oh, but I forget: you've made a life in it and you're happy with it and loyal to your buddies, so none of this matters.

[TeamsterDem]

52. More justification

of the fact that you simply can't or won't accept the fact that you - as a non-military observer - simply don't and can't possibly know what it's like to be in the military. As such your claims that military folks should refuse orders and what not are just the blithe rambling opinions of someone with an ax to grind against the military and US government power structure. I don't have any particular problem with your rants against the government's policy-setting apparatus, but when you criticize those who believe wholeheartedly that they're serving for the good of the country as being "suckers" and Arab killers, you're not only wrong but seeking to purposely offend those who've put their lives on the line to serve the common good. You might not think it's the common good, but that's merely your opinion, not a fact.

Now you might think you know what the military does, and as a matter of where the military has been, statistics on deaths and other casualties, and stories which have been published for your consumption, yes, you might know as much as a non-military observer can know. But what you can't know - the point I've made - is what it's like to be the guy who's got to follow orders under the ambit of the codes of conduct and the UCMJ. That you can't possibly know because you've never been that guy. You've never been standing toe-to-toe with a drill instructor barking orders at you; you've never been in a firefight where any political ideals necessarily fly out the window as soon as the first 7.62 x 39 flies overhead.

None of that means you don't have a right to speak. You're an American citizen; you can speak as freely as I. But until you've fought and bled for this country as I have, your criticisms of American soldiers as individuals are simply the ravings of someone who's never done that which he criticizes so broadly. Owing to that your critiques hold very little weight as they necessarily must, something you've spent several posts trying in vein to refute, but refute you cannot.

American citizens - those who never served and will never serve - all carry monetary costs of war, but they don't carry the physical and psychological costs. How could they? That's for people like us who pay taxes AND who've been in combat, thus carrying both loads, and doing so because some such as yourself don't feel it necessary to help carry the other side of the load. That's your right, certainly, but don't you dare tell me that you're bearing the same burden as those of us who've bled on foreign soil for this country - and lost friends in the process - that you're somehow our load-bearing equals. Quite simply, you're not.

While you were busying yourself reading about war and forming opinions against it, I was in those wars and getting a firsthand look at them. I hate war more than any single person should hate something but I don't hate it because statistics tell me to but instead because I've seen the physical and emotional trauma they inflict: I've seen parents lose children; I've seen children lose parents. And of course, I've seen people lose limbs and, at times, their minds. You ever carry your friend's arm over to the Navy Corpsman so he could put it on the Blackhawk with your injured friend to take with him to the field hospital? You ever had to wash your best friend's blood out of your eyes? Didn't think so. Come talk to me when you have. Maybe then your opinion on when soldiers should refuse orders might carry some weight. Until then you're just another guy with an unfounded and inexperienced opinion.

What you keep trying to do is turn this into a policy debate where instead this is a debate on the merits of the individual soldier and the costs he or she must bear; you can't talk about the military as some inanimate object because it's inherently comprised of people (eg the military isn't a tank or a plane). Budgets, CIA interventions, and all the other straw men are just those: straw men, largely because I've already agreed with you that our policy in the Middle East was foolish and shortsighted. But the CIA, State Department, and the President who controls them aren't the military. Instead they're policymakers. And the delusion the operate under seems to be that they get to operate with impunity - setting disastrous policy after policy - and then call us when their foolishness is no longer working. Problem is - and this is where I agree with you - that we can't fix their mistakes, and in fact our use can create more problems than good when we're sent in to mop up after bad policy.

But what you don't seem to realize (or care to acknowledge) is that we don't set those policies. That's why we're not called policymakers. But our duty isn't to individual policymakers, but to the Constitutionally-mandated power structure and to the country as a whole. And even when we're mopping up bad policy, we're still serving the country's needs because if it's the case that a bad policy is coming home to roost, it's inherently possible (sometimes likely) that without our intervention the country would suffer some horrible cost - a cost more horrible than our involvement.

That's the case in Afghanistan: If we weren't sent in to clean out Al Qaeda remnants and Taliban leaders, then they'd continue to have a haven to launch attacks against the mainland United States. For the purpose of this particular discussion on the individual military man and woman it doesn't matter that years of horrible policy set into motion the chain of events that led up to Al Qaeda and the Taliban being in power (we already agree that such is the case), but the question becomes "what do we do about it now that we're here?" Should we have just let them continue uninterrupted? Issued a public statement that it was our years of bad policy which led to this situation? Neither of those things would've ended Al Qaeda's campaign against us, so in fact it was militarily necessary to intervene.

You can point to all the hearsay conspiracy theory anecdotes you wish, but the fact is that Al Qaeda conducted extremely deadly attacks against the United States on, before, and after 9/11 from their safe harbor in Afghanistan. They've said such is true; I see no reason to disbelieve them. But apparently what you'd have us do is absorb these and whatever future attacks they might launch simply because we had years of bad policy which angered them. As righteous as their anger might be (and I stress "might"), the fact is that no country can sit idly by while some inflamed group conducts military assaults on its assets and within its shores. And that's where we come in: our use in Afghanistan isn't condoning the years of bad policy, but instead protecting the country in the here and now. To us (in terms of our instant mission) it doesn't matter what angered these folks. What matters is that they're threatening the safety of Americans, and thus it's our mission to prevent them from doing that.

But what I note particularly from you is your frequent hypocrisy. First you state that you as an American citizen carry equal costs for the military and that you as an outside observer are "more sober" in your assessment of the military. But then you note that I would "know better" about whether or not the military are bloodthirsty killers. Well, which is it? Are you the sober judge to issue verdicts on all things military? Or isn't it true that members of the military - both former and current - are more capable (eg "know better") judges as to the mindset of military members and their ability or refusal to deny orders? It can't be both. And stop trying to twist this debate into broad policy arguments and instead focus on the argument I'm making, that the individuals in the American military are guardians of American freedom and safety. Focus on that when and if you dare respond.

As to Vietnam, no, sorry, the military's justification for continuation did not end in Vietnam as you've alleged. Why? Simply put, America's threats didn't end there. We were still embroiled in the Cold War as you've apparently forgotten, and we still had a commitment to the South Koreans to protect them from the North. Those are ample "justifications" and "moral right" considering that one was a distinct threat and the other was a commitment we made to a foreign ally. Perhaps you consider the Soviet Union to have been a US-made threat, but the facts suggest otherwise, namely their stationing of nuclear-tipped missiles 90 miles from our southern shore.

Get off your high horse for one second and realize that America exists in an unsafe world. It may be true that we cause some of the instability, but that instability is with us nonetheless and would remain even and especially if we didn't have a standing Army. Foreign deployments such as Vietnam might have been ill-advised but feeding the starving and attacking America's enemies are not, much as you might promote otherwise.

[JackRiddler]

54. Let's focus on the argument you're making then.

And stop trying to twist this debate into broad policy arguments and instead focus on the argument I'm making, that the individuals in the American military are guardians of American freedom and safety. Focus on that when and if you dare respond.

You and many other individuals in the American military believe they are guardians of American freedom and safety. I don't believe that, though I acknowledge and respect that this is what you genuinely believe.

Many soldiers came to a different conviction than yours about the function of the military, thanks to their own experience. On the whole, I am more convinced by veterans like Ron Kovic, who wants to shut down recruitment efforts, and by all the soldiers in the documentary on military resistance in Vietnam, "Sir, No Sir!" than by you.

"Sir, No Sir!"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3342610

I prefer Tom Glen, who bucked orders to expose US military atrocities in Vietnam, to a certain PR officer named Colin Powell, who followed orders and suppressed the news, and thus kept making his way up the ladder. Clearly, an honest and courageous man like Glen should have ended up in charge of the military, and not Powell.

I prefer Smedley Butler, the most highly decorated Marine of his time who then wrote "War is a Racket" and was vilified for it by the militarists, to Gens. Patton, MacArthur and Eisenhower, who followed Hoover's illegal orders to flush out the "Bonus Army" of WWI veterans from Washington with tanks, and who thus advanced their careers on their way to becoming the highest-ranking men in US uniform.

Smedley Butler:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3342880

And that's where we stand. What you consistently confuse here is the difference between knowing the military from the inside, as you do, and knowing what the military does in the world, which anyone can. It's sad that logic and history aren't the only consideration here, rather than claims of superior knowledge stemming from personal experience. Why would I need to be in a war to understand that war is a hateful and horrible thing? I already know about how my grandfather was shot dead in combat by the Nazis on the day of the Greek capitulation in 1941. The whole point should be that this madness ends, not that we learn again how bad it is by experiencing it personally.

But if I must resort to quoting men who've seen combat to counter your pro-militarist view, then there is no shortage of them.

"I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, bloody, dollar-soaked fingers out of the business of these nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own -- and if unfortunately their revolution must be of the violent type because the "haves" refuse to share with the "have-nots" by any peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not the American style, which they don't want and above all don't want crammed down their throats by Americans."

General David M. Shoup, May 14, 1966
Commandant of the Marine Corps 1960-63,
and winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor

[TeamsterDem]

55. Now we're getting somewhere

I appreciate your last response. I still disagree but this is more on target than was your previous stuff.

Whether you realize it or not your last post actually makes my point for me; that you must quote former US military members to make your point serves mine. How? Because it shows that only those who have served know what it is to ask that they refuse an order. This isn't simply telling your McDonald's manager that you don't feel like making the fries; it's telling your superior officer - one who has the power to throw you in the stockade - that you're not going to fulfill an order which you swore an oath to fulfill.

Perhaps it doesn't or hasn't yet come through but I honor these folks for what they did even if I disagree with them. I do so because they had the uniform on and are thus positioned to tell me something about refusing an order - doing so from the position of having done the thing they're promoting. Quite obviously I'd be an idiot to try and tell these folks that they don't know what they're talking about. They obviously do. But with them I might disagree on their particular order or duty assignment (which they refused), but would certainly give their argument the weight it deserves (again because they have currency in the argument).

My argument is this: When one signs up for the military one isn't seeking standard employment such as getting a job at McDonald's or even some high-powered corporation. Instead one's seeking to serve their country (as opposed to serving their own wallets), and they most often go into that service believing fully that it is the right thing to do. It goes almost without saying that the vast majority go into it at a young age, most often 18. I'm a teenager no longer but I definitely remember 18 (it feels like just yesterday even though chronology forces me to realize it isn't). At 18 - like most kids that age - I thought I had a full grasp on the world; let's face it: like most kids that age I thought I knew every damn thing there was to be known. That's how most kids are.

Most of the recruitment field are highly patriotic kids who love the country and - whether they have siblings or parents who served (many do) - feel they owe the country something for all of the benefits being an American carries with it. And of course many are seeking the college benefits associated with military service (I know I was). Most of those kids, though, despite their love of country and sense of duty, realize that the country isn't perfect and fully understand that some foreign deployments might not be perfect (they've all heard of Vietnam). But they still sign up because they don't buy into the logical fallacy that only perfection deserves reward; they know that imperfect things are at times the only choice available to them.

With any foreign deployment comes a certain amount of apprehension, fear, and calculation. The fear and apprehension should be obvious, but it's the calculation wherein you're erring in your argument. This calculation isn't as simple as hopping on Google, researching the entire history of the country, the rhetoric leading up to the conflict, and imbibing every possible alternative news source to make a calculated choice. Nope. Instead it's listening to commanders who advise on what the military knows about the country, the "need" for intervention, the mission, and the suggested guidelines for attaining victory. In addition one can watch limited amounts of TV and do limited amounts of research at times where training and mission preparation aren't being conducted. And make no mistake the training and mission preparations are crucial; without either one would waltz into a conflict without the tools and knowledge necessary to stay alive. Neither is training or mission prepping optional.

If the orders were "invade country X and kill all people of a certain ethnic group," then yes the vast bulk would refuse those orders; I knew no murderers or psychopaths in my time in the Marine Corps. But the orders - the questionable ones - are never that clearcut; it's rarely as simple as deducing "this order obviously violates the law." In the case of Iraq - as against that war as I am - I see no order which violates the law. The president - our commander - determined that there were WMD in Iraq and that Iraq posed a threat. It's not within our purview to review the decision-making processes of our commander in chief. It's only within our purview to review certain orders for obvious violations of the law or moral standards (eg we can be dishonorably discharged for refusing orders which don't obviously violate the law; we're rarely dismissed as such for refusing obvious law-breaking orders).

You and I might have thought in 2002-2003 that there was no way Iraq was a threat and that the claims of WMD were concocted. And of course it turns out we were right. But that doesn't mean that in 2002-2003 that we KNEW there were no WMD; we only surmised that there weren't. We had no way of proving one way or another that they did or didn't exist. We could only present best guesses and such. But unfortunately the military was lawfully deployed to Iraq and here we find ourselves. That's not to say that I agree with Bush. I most certainly don't. But his order - the order itself - was legal because Congress authorized it pursuant to the law. It was the process he used to manufacture the threat and hype Iraq's "dangers" which was likely illegal, not the actual order for military intervention.

If it were ever proven - and I mean proven in court or Congressional impeachment proceedings - that Bush did violate the law with his process for determining and hyping the threat Iraq posed, then the order for military intervention would also become illegal. But not until then. And not until then would it be possible for a military officer or enlisted person to refuse the order to deploy because unlike my hypothetical "invade country X and kill all people of a certain ethnicity" case, the order to invade Iraq doesn't OBVIOUSLY violate the law; you'd be dishonorably discharged from the military for refusing that order and suffer a lifetime of joblessness and opprobrium which attends such a designation.

Most cases of insubordination (order refusals) came from the Vietnam era. And rightfully so. But you can't compare that era to today because they're simply incomparable: One was a war in which refusal to follow some orders was often greeted with tepid endorsement by court martial proceedings (owing to popular hatred of that war and Congressional support for those who refused such orders), whereas the other doesn't enjoy those de facto protections. Depending on the order, one is almost certain to be dishonorably discharged in today's military for refusing almost any order (again depending on the order). That's not to dismiss the courage of those who dissented from orders during Vietnam, just to point out the facts that one isn't necessarily equal to the other.

But what you seem to be asking of military personnel is perfect knowledge; that they know every possible thing to be known about a particular circumstance. While that's a nifty concept it has no basis in the real world - especially in the military. Why? Because again, you're asking a group largely composed of teenagers to go against the training they've received to take instruction from superiors and to instead skip training and mission prepping (itself a violation of military code) because they should instead be on Google or wherever doing research. And it's for this very reason that I point to your lack of military currency as my reasoning to disagree with you: You have no idea what happens prior to a mission; you have no idea how much time is REQUIRED for training, mission prep, family time spent prior to deployments, sleep, and the other necessities which effectively prevent the research you seem intent on demanding they do prior to deploying. If you had any experience in the military you'd know how silly this is, that's why I point out your lack of military credentials.

Had you ever been on "Old Smokey" or in a simulated firefight in the deserts of California then you'd know such exercises are both required and time consuming. It's not as if these soldiers and Marines carry a laptop with them on overnight maneuvers, surfing the 'net into the wee hours of the morning searching for any nugget of information they might use to dissent from an order. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Instead we're on maneuvers for most hours of the day (in prep for war) learning how to stay alive (the most important thing for any individual). Is there any time for research? Yes. But this isn't the kind of research which nets much beyond the MSNBC/CNN type of "information." Sorry, time constraints prevent it.

So under all of this duress you might ask how some soldiers find their way clear to get the information necessary to dissent. Largely but not always that encouragement comes from their families who DO have the time to research the thing, and then convey their information and views to the soldier himself. But many families refrain from this kind of thing because they want to show their loved one support because they know how important it is for them to know they're loved and supported. If a family is able to keep a loved one out of a conflict which is "illegal" or "immoral," that's definitely love and support. But not doing that doesn't equate to less love or less support because some of those families simply don't know how to do that research or at times they might simply support the idea of the war; a lot of factors can and do go into why a family might not do that research.

Most often, though, it's the soldier's own experience in the conflict which gives them the insight necessary to dissent. And it's here where, again, you're out on a limb because you don't have that experience. You have no idea what's seen in war; you have no idea how seeing your best friend literally in pieces on the battlefield can encourage even a sane, intelligent individual to miss those "facts" which are obvious TO YOU because he's busy ducking incoming fire and carrying his wounded comrades to safety. That concept entirely eludes you because you can't and simply don't know what that feels like. How could you? More presently important: How can you pretend to?

As awful as the Iraq fiasco is the military is still a necessary force because without it we'd be unable to defend ourselves from a very dangerous world. If you think Al Qaeda is a benign group of guys - a "phantom" as you've called it - then you lack even the judgment necessary to determine the best course of exit from a 4-wall room (see "the door"). They attacked us in 1993 at the WTC, hit us in Dar Es Salaam and Tanzania, the Khobar Towers, the Yemeni attack on the U.S.S. Cole, and of course on 9/11. They also hit Madrid and Bali. Those attacks killed thousands of innocent people - most of them Americans - and whether or not our decades of bad foreign policy led to those attacks or not - and judging by the attacks in Madrid and Bali I'd suggest that's not the entire reasoning - it doesn't matter. We still need a defense force to prevent future such attacks. Do we also need a more sane foreign policy? Of course. But that's not the military's job, thus they can't bear the blame for it.

But me and others wholly reject your specious claim that we are somehow responsible for bad foreign policy. We don't set it; never have. We might have been used poorly at times - the evidence on that is pretty heavy in certain situations - but we don't "use" ourselves; we must be activated and deployed by someone. It's that "someone" where you need to redirect your anger; they're the ones to blame for what's happening. Not us. We didn't deploy ourselves to Iraq, Vietnam, or anywhere else for that matter.

[arcadian]

18. I know plenty of people who have gotten out of the military

who think it's just a big sham. Enlisted because of promises of college or training in a work related field only to end up switching out latrine barrels at some camp in the middle of nowhere. I know enlisted personnel who after getting out only had enough training to get a job at a fast food restaurant. People who say that they are only body guards for contractors in Iraq. They don't paint the military in such red, white and blue tones such as you. In fact they hated it and still do.

Also, Al Qaeda? A threat? How many aircraft carriers do they have? Armored personnel carriers? Tanks? How many personnel? Your assessment of Al Qaeda being a threat is a joke. Anybody who thinks that Al Qaeda is a threat is either a coward or they are trying to use the so-called terror threat to promote a militaristic agenda or both.

[TeamsterDem]

21. While that might make for a great anecdote

it does little to bolster your argument because I could (and do) counter with the fact that I was in and received the college benefits, and know plenty of others just like me who're damn proud and happy to have served. So what do we do now? Count how many people I know that liked it and then stack that up against your tally? Anecdotes do nothing to win an argument.

As to Al Qaeda's threat and their lack of hardware I ask this simple question: If their lack of hardware necessarily meant that they had no strike capability, what in the world happened in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, The Khobar Towers, The World Trade Center (twice), the port of Aden in Yemen (U.S.S. Cole), Madrid, and Bali? Call me crazy but those were pretty darn effective strikes by this supposedly impotent group.

Look genius, just because Bush has overreacted with military power in nations which had nothing to do with Al Qaeda (but unfortunately do now thanks to him) doesn't mean that there is no Al Qaeda. And it's not just Al Qaeda. It's Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Hezbollah. Hamas. The list goes on and on. If you think there's not a threat that's your prerogative. But I ask you to explain if they don't pose a threat how they managed to do what they did on 9/11 and the other occasions I mentioned above. Shouldn't be too difficult a task for someone so brazen as to label anyone who disagrees with him or her a "coward" or "militarist."

[Hobarticus]

31. Hey...

On another note, thanks for your service. I mean it.

:toast:

[TeamsterDem]

35. Thank you very much!

:toast:

[cherokeeprogressive]

38. "The US was attacked... For the one time in all history, I would have joined the Army myself"

Um, I'm betting not.

[JackRiddler]

43. Whatever, macho man.

You brave servant, you.

[cherokeeprogressive]

49. Well you got it half right at least. I've NEVER been accused of being "macho".

But a servant I was, yes. Proudly so. So, I take your reply as something of a compliment. Thank You.

You will probably have a hard time swallowing this, maybe not: My shipmates and I actually enriched the lives of those less fortunate than us. Are you choking yet? You see, while you were busy forming the opinion that all members of the armed services since 1945 are murderers (as evidenced by the comments you made in this original OP)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3342573&mesg_id=3342573

my fellow shipmates and I were doing things like painting schools in Columbo, and building structures at orphanages in Mombasa on our liberty time. Those people thanked us for our "service", you gotta believe. We didn't "feel" like we were doing the right thing, we knew it in our hearts.

Here's a little proof of how out of touch you are with society at large in the context of "The highest medal the military can convey..." Dishonorable discharge from voluntary service pretty much brands a person for life. It dooms them to a life of flipping burgers or working at the local Lube & Tune for immigrants wages. If it were different from that, why don't I hear about SUCCESSFUL people who've been dishonorably discharged from voluntary service? I'm certain that if you were a business owner, you'd search out those people and give them high paying jobs, right?

You tried, but you failed. You failed to steal the day Monday from those who've made the ultimate sacrifice. Not for lack of trying though, I'll give you that. You did your best. For that I commend you. But your words traveled no further than the limitations of HTML and the Internet would allow them to. Unless of course, you were standing on a streetcorner somewhere protesting the remembrance of Americans who died in service to their country with a flag displayed upside down as the parade marched by. My guess is that's not where you were though. My guess is you were sitting behind a monitor typing insulting things about people you've never met.

[JackRiddler]

51. So if you did noble things during your service...

What is so awful to you in the idea that a real Memorial Day, in addition to the fallen troops, should remember the millions of innocent victims of US imperialism, who died at a ratio of 10 or 100 to 1 for ever US service person fallen? Why can't your heart expand to acknowledge their humanity, their sacrifice?

And if all I did was to write powerless, insulting stuff on a pointless Internet thread, why do you even care? You think you know me now, as a nothing and an Internet-only wanker. So why do I matter to you?

Thanks for the link, by the way, it will allow people to read what I wrote and judge whether I really said "all members of the armed services since 1945 are murderers." That is an outrageous lie, and really typical of the pro-military mentality, which never responds to criticism of the crimes committed by the US military as a whole, except to misrepresent the critique as a traitorous attack on "the troops."

You're happy with how your service was good for the world, and it sounds like you did some very noble things - I can't help noting however that the example you give was of the volunteer actions you chose to do during your own "liberty time." Presumably this was not your primary activity under orders.

Unfortunately you use your good deeds during your liberty time to obscure the reality of what the military also, undeniably does.

Or do you deny that the US military has also been used in wars of imperialism, killing millions of people, for example in Vietnam and Iraq? Maybe you weren't involved in any of these crimes personally, but do you deny it?

Do you deny that the primary function of the military is not to allow you to do good deeds during your free time in Colombo, but to maintain a worldwide empire against resistance native to countries in the regions this empire has penetrated -- otherwise, why would this kind of force be required?!

Perhaps you don't deny it. But apparently you and other apologists would like to have it both ways: when the military destroys the Iraqi nation, creating two million refugees and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, this is the fault of the US civilian command who use th military like a hammer. But when it's dispatched to dispense food aid, then that's the unselfish service of the service members.

Well, the members can be responsible for both acts or for neither, but not for one and not the other.

---

PS - I didn't argue that society honors a dishonorable discharge, so your point about that is off-point. I was also using rhetorical exaggeration. There are many bad reasons why one might get a dishonorable discharge. But such a discharge for the crime of insubordination against illegal or inhumane orders is indeed morally the highest honor the military can convey, regardless of whether the society at large recognizes it or not.

[Kitty Herder]

41. Well said, JackRiddler. nt

[Kitty Herder]

45. It's quite obvious to me who won this little spat.

Kudos to you, JackRiddler.

[mmonk]

20. The guardians of freedom are those in charge of the constitution.

Not every country that has gone to war has been free. So warriors are not the guardians. Whatever legal system provides in conjunction with the constitution of said country enumerates what rights have been granted.

[TeamsterDem]

22. Depends

To just say that soldiers are guardians of the Constitution without clarifying that sometimes they're not is hyperbole. But to say that the US service members defended American freedom during WWII would be accurate. It all depends on how and when it's used.

[mmonk]

24. True. Depends alot on leaders of the country and the cause to fight

as well as the system of rights granted or denied.

[JackRiddler]

25. Can you come up with an example since 1945? Thanks.

[TeamsterDem]

27. Sure

Afghanistan. 2001-Present

[JackRiddler]

29. As a Google slave, how can I resist?

http://rawa.org

Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA)

RAWA is the oldest political/social organization of Afghan women struggling for peace, freedom, democracy and women's rights in fundamentalism-blighted Afghanistan since 1977.

If you are freedom-loving and anti-fundamentalist, you are with RAWA. Support and help us.

(snip)

RAWA Statement on the International Women's Day (Mar.8, 2008)

The US and Her Fundamentalist Stooges are the Main Human Rights Violators in Afghanistan. RAWA communiqué on Universal Human Rights Day, Dec.10, 2007

(snip)

Disgraceful Bill of "National Conciliation":
The last nail into the coffin of fake democracy

Five Years Later, Afghanistan Still in Flames
Speech by Zoya at a benefit for RAWA in Los Angeles on October 7, 2006

(snip)

The "Miracle" or a Mockery of Afghanistan?
RAWA's response to "The Afghanistan Miracle" (The Seattle Times, Oct. 4, 2005)

The US Government Wants War,
the People of US and the World Want Peace!

Reality of life in so-called "liberated" Afghanistan

'Civilians the worst sufferers of Helmand operation'

Innocent Civilians Killed and Imprisoned by US Forces in Helmand

(snip)

CIA death squads killing with “impunity” in Afghanistan

Taliban claim death of "female US spy"

(snip)

Canada silent as Afghanistan’s democracy stifled

(snip)

Western failure to grasp the reality of Afghanistan is exacting a terrible cost on the civilian population

(snip)

Pakistani society was ‘militarised’ with ‘active US support’: Khattak

Afghan teacher shot dead after condemning suicide bombings as un-Islamic

Extreme Poverty Force Afghans to Give Away Children

(snip)

Post-Taliban Kabul blossoms for the rich

Burnt children after a NATO bomb attack (shocking photos)

(snip)

Stone Age still lingers on in Bamyan, many live in caves

(snip)

How US dollars disappear in Afghanistan: quickly and thoroughly

(snip)

Anti-US riots grip Kabul city, 8 killed many injured (with photos)

(snip)

US airstrike on Afghan village kills dozens civilians (with photos)

(snip)

US not interested in peace in Afghanistan: Kathy Gannon

(snip)

Gulbuddin's terrorist party has 34 members in the parliament

(snip - the above refers to the old CIA-Osama friend, Hekmatyar)

US Exporting Fake Democracy -- By Force

(snip)

Afghanistan "Narco-State": UN

Afghan women still in chains under Karzai

(snip)

"Globalization" of Poverty Hits Afghanistan

(snip)

Destitution in Kabul

Victims of the US strikes

(snip)

Bleeding Afghanistan: Washington, Warlords, and the Propaganda of Silence
By Sonali Kolhatkar with James Ingalls

(snip)

[TeamsterDem]

36. Uhhh, okay

What's the point here? What argument are you making? Considering that most of those "articles" were written addressing the US invasion of Iraq - something I've already stated I'm in full disagreement with - and also pointed out that the US had originally propped-up the Taliban (again a policy not military issue), I'm confused as to what any of that has to do with this debate.

[arcadian]

33. Afghanistan the "noble" war.

Crock of shit. It had absolutely nothing to do with a Unocal pipeline that had been planned since 1995, my god you are naive. Do you really believe the crap you are shoveling? I suspect not.

[TeamsterDem]

34. I'm naive?

For saying that the US invaded Afghanistan after being attacked by residents of its country which the regime refused to hand over for prosecution, I'm the naive one? I'm naive for saying that US military personnel are trying to fight as best they can to kill Al Qaeda militants?

Wow, that's quite an assessment you've got yourself there. Problem is the fact that this pipeline of which you speak was planned in 1995 (according to you), yet the US didn't invade Afghanistan until late 2001 AFTER being attacked by elements within that country. I suppose then that the US government must've also been complicit in 9/11; you know, justify the whole "pipeline-building war." That what you're peddling here, is it? With a straight face too?

Yep, but I'm the naive one. Right.

[JackRiddler]

39. except...

- The US (Bush admin) negotiated via backchannel with the Taliban in an attempt to get a unity government and pipeline deal from Jan.-June 2001. (This was at the same time as the Cheney energy meetings and initial planning for Iraq.)

- During this time the US gave $125 million in aid to the Taliban, including for help to farmers affected by the Taliban's policy of destroying the opium crop (which succeeded almost totally).

- The US had CIA on the ground in Afghanistan reaching out to the warlords for 18 months prior to 9/11. (Washington Post)

- The backchannel negotiators in Berlin in June 2001 threatened the Taliban with a choice: "a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs." (Dasquie & Brisard, Forbidden Truth)
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a072101berlin#a072101berlin

- Indian press also claimed in June a US invasion of Afghanistan would come in October and involve Russian cooperation (as the actual invasion did when it happened, with Russia allowing unprecedented flyovers of its territory).

- An invasion plan for Afghanistan was put on Bush's desk on Sept. 9th. Three carrier groups were in the area simultaneously and the British had just dispatched 1/4 of all UK military forces to Oman for an "exercise."

- All that was missing was a casus belli. And then it arrived. Curious.

- The Taliban offered to turn over Bin Ladin if the US showed proof of his culpability in 9/11, which the US claimed to have but did not provide (as promised to allies) prior to the invasion.

- A Taliban official had even warned the US of an attack coming before 9/11.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a0301envoy#a0301envoy

- The invasion went ahead as planned in October. One of the key methods was to offer suitcases full of cash to the warlords, who had turned against the Taliban due to the opium thing.

- The opium crop was planted in November and a record harvest the next spring. Please draw your own conclusion from that.

- And today the oldest, internationally acclaimed, courageous group fighting for women's rights in Afghanistan, RAWA, sees the US in collusion with corrupt, drug-dealing warlords as the worst violators of human rights in their country.

So much for the good war.

[JANdad]

30. Pssst....

the constitution was written AFTER soldiers with guns fought...so that the "Rights" could be guaranteed...just thought you should know that.

[arcadian]

32. Psssst...

Actually one of the foundations for the U.S. Constitution was the Virginia Declaration of Rights, written well before most of the fighting started.

[JANdad]

47. Please...

let's be intellectually honest here and not try and change the premise of your argument. You ranted in your OP about the rights guaranteed you by the constitution. Like it or not...those rights are defended by soldiers. If you do not believe this, try looking at the many dictatorships throughout world history.

[JackRiddler]

53. If you were intellectually honest, you would at least include in that...

The empirically observable reality of how many of the dictatorships throughout world history came into being as the result of militarism or too much power vested in the military. That would probably be most dictatorships: a coup by a bunch of generals. In the case of the Nazis, it was a coup by military fetishists, with many reactionary military members in their ranks who were angry above all at a society that insufficiently honored its veterans. Something to think about.

How can you be blind to the threat to freedom posed by the state itself, invariably in the name of defense against foreign threats? It's intellectual dishonesty not to see that the military is taking on domestic police functions (repeal of Posse Comitatus comes to mind), the police are increasingly militarized, and pro-militarist ideology goes hand in hand with a surveillance state and rollback of rights at home.

[JackRiddler]

40. Pssst...

Good thing we don't live in Canada, a totalitarian dictatorship with no protection for individual rights whatsoever, because they're still under the British boot.

[JackRiddler]

44. Now here is a veteran who serves his country

Ron Kovic
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3349271

Not stuck in maudlin evocations of camarederie and macho belonging and romanticizing death. Kovic knows the score. He paid the price, in the form of paralysis. And he says: Stop recruiters.

That is a hero.