# Honoring those who gave us rights



## rmcrobertson (Apr 4, 2005)

As much as I honor anyone who's given their life for their country, or won the Medal of Honor, I'd like to point out something:

 In THIS country, Peter Zenger, "gave," us freedom of the press as much as anyone did, as did a long string of brave men and women up through reporters like Seymour Hersch and many, many others;

 In this country, Paine and Jefferson and Holmes and Brandeis and Douglas, "gave," us freedom of speech among many, many others;

 In this country, Roger Williams and Thoreau and Debs and Margaret Sanger and the Wobblies and the AFL-CIO and John Lewis and the Rev. C.L. Franklin and Mario Savio and Chavez and many, many others, "gave," us the freedom to organize.

 And our Constitution says that these rights are, "inalienable--" they are part of the natural heritage of human beings, and no human being, however brave or worthy, "gave," them to us. 

 Soldiers defend these rights, which are fragile. All honor to them for that.


----------



## Seig (Apr 5, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And our Constitution says that these rights are, "inalienable--" they are part of the natural heritage of human beings, and no human being, however brave or worthy, "gave," them to us.
> 
> Soldiers defend these rights, which are fragile. All honor to them for that.


Oh really? You are wrong. I suggest you read the _Constitution_
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html
 Nowhere does it say any of our rights are "inalienable", see the _Declaration of Independence _http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html
 This document does say that all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. 
 History shows that this document was written, not because the people of this country already had these rights but were being ruled by an oppressive government that denied them these rights.
 The declaration further stated which injustices the founders felt were being inflicted upon them and why they deemed it necessary to sever ties with the then current King of Great Britain, Geroge III.

 What the founders of this country did, in fact, was commit treason against the legal government of the time; thus risking their lives for the ideal we are now allowed to besmirch, misquote, misunderstand, and generally mock. Men and women of this country died to secure the liberties talked about in the _Declaration_ and guaranteed in the_ Constitution_. So yes, they did in fact give these rights to us. 

 Furthermore, the servicemen and women of today, take an oath upon entering the service "that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same"(incidentally, an oath I proudly swore). They are defending the rights so many daily take for granted; in essence reaffirming those rights. By making sure that no one can take away your rights, they are continuing to give them to you. 

 Where else in the world do they enjoy the level of freedoms we have in this country?<rhetorical question> Nowhere.

 To deny these men and women that are sacrifing for their country the respect they deserve; especially a MOH winner, is in fact dishonoring all they have cried, sweat, bled, and died for.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 5, 2005)

Yes. All those people mentioned, as honorable and important as they were, would have meant nothing if it were not for the soldiers that bought their freedom from the King of England with their blood.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 5, 2005)

I am saddened that this thread, honoring the recipient of the Medal of Honor has degraded into a pissing match.

As other Medal of Honor recipients have said (recently, in fact), they wear the medals for all of those who have served and taken actions of heroism and bravery, but escaped notice. With over 1 million soldiers having been rotated through Afghanistan and Iraq, I am certain that Sgt. Smith has some colleagues that have acted with equal courage. For all of them, in addition to his own actions, are these honors bestowed.

Lastly, this is a civil country of laws, not a military state. Yet, neither could exist without the other. It would be nice if a similiar level of respect was shown to the non-military institutions in our society. You guys familiar with this:

:yinyang:

P.S. This post from Adept, from the thread http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23144 - was replied to by rmcrobertson. Roberts reply and subsequent responses, were split to this thread. 



			
				Adept said:
			
		

> _It is the soldier, not the reporter, Who has given us freedom of the press. _
> _It is the soldier, not the poet, Who has given us freedom of speech. _
> _It is the soldier, not the organizer, Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate._
> _It is the soldier, Who salutes the flag, Who serves beneath the flag, _
> ...


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 5, 2005)

_Moderator Note:

 Thread split - memorial posts place in the Hall of Remembrance.

 Georgia Ketchmark
 Sr. Moderator_


----------



## ginshun (Apr 5, 2005)

> _It is the soldier, not the reporter, Who has given us freedom of the press.
> It is the soldier, not the poet, Who has given us freedom of speech.
> It is the soldier, not the organizer, Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
> It is the soldier, Who salutes the flag, Who serves beneath the flag,
> ...


_ 
_I have always liked that.

 Thank you Sgt. Smith, may the Gods watch over you.


 Just a thought Robert, but minimizing the role of our countries soldiers in the same breath that you claim to honor them is exactly what I would expect from you.  I can't even think of anything more disrepectful.  You make sick.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 5, 2005)

There is some evidence that the cited poem is not the work of Father O'Brien, but rather a Charles Michael Province.

Strange, the showing disrespect for members of our society that are not in the military does not make you sick. Oh, Well.


----------



## ginshun (Apr 5, 2005)

> Strange, the showing disrespect for members of our society that are not in the military does not make you sick. Oh, Well.


 I don't know what you mean.


----------



## Michael Billings (Apr 5, 2005)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> _Moderator Note:
> 
> Thread split - memorial posts place in the Hall of Remembrance.
> 
> ...


 *An explanation:  The topic of this thread was being sidetracked into another agenda.  Staff split the thread to allow the dialogue to continue if anyone wishes to debate this.  

 -Michael
*


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 5, 2005)

Seig said:
			
		

> Furthermore, the servicemen and women of today, take an oath upon entering the service "that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same"



I'm afraid the current mission of many of our soldiers in Iraq has very little to do with this oath.  The same can be said of many other campaigns that have taken place over the last thirty-five years.  

Question - just how much does it really take to defend our country in today's time?

Maybe the purpose of our military isn't defense anymore...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 5, 2005)

1. Well, first off, I don't agree that I "sidetracked," a damn thing. Somebody else got on the thread and threw in the bit about soldiers, "giving," us our rights.

2. Real sorry "I," make you, "sick," "ginshun." But I'm even sorrier that you need to write that way--and that you seem to know so little of your own history. Also sorry that you didn't bother actually to read what I wrote. Sorriest of all that manners forbid my responding in kind.

3. I too read and enjoyed, "Starship Troopers." However, if you think the discussion in the invented History and Moral Philosophy class is terrific (it agrees with Mao: all political power comes out of the barrel of a gun) or the society that that novel lays out (only soldiers can vote; it's a military "democracy"), well, sorry--that's not America.

4. The folks I mentioned did as much to, "preserve, protect, and defend," our rights as anybody ever did. Often, they gave up careers and families and even their lives to do it, too. 

5. Quite right--it's the Declaration that explains where our rights come from, as I suspect folks knew perfectly well. Soldiers--and cops, and others--defend those rights, and so (hopefully) do we. 

6. Nobody--certainly not myself!--denied that this man gave his life for his fellow soldiers and for his country. As I wrote before--apparently not in English--all honor to him for that. But perhaps it's not quite so honoring to surf on his memory to insert one more slam at Americans who don't quite see the world the way we do.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 5, 2005)

A lot of what we call rights, like the weekend, came because large groups of people who got fed up with the exploitive practices of wealthy capitalists and attempted to better their lives.  The work they did and the blood they shed affects our everyday lives.  These people were not soldiers.  

They were shot by soldiers.

Many people can work for our freedom in this country.  That is not the sole responsibility of the soldier.  The military is just another profession.  Like any other.  Respect them as humans.  Anything more must be earned.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 5, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Soldiers defend these rights, which are fragile. All honor to them for that.


I do see that you are specifying or clarifying the why's and how's of your honoring the dead MOH winner, I can also see how starting a thread that looks like a "Hey, he was great but these guys shouldn't be forgotten either" is piggy backing and agendizing his recognition just as much as you seem to be accusing the government of doing.

Untimely at best.  None too well phrased at worst.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 5, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> A lot of what we call rights, like the weekend, came because large groups of people who got fed up with the exploitive practices of wealthy capitalists and attempted to better their lives. The work they did and the blood they shed affects our everyday lives. These people were not soldiers.
> 
> They were shot by soldiers.
> 
> Many people can work for our freedom in this country. That is not the sole responsibility of the soldier. The military is just another profession. Like any other. Respect them as humans. Anything more must be earned.


No one is saying that it is the sole resonsibility of soldiers...simply honoring one that did it to a level of selflessness that deserves recognition. 

Yes, soldiers/LEO have and will continue to shoot citizens that are waving pick ax handles, behaving in a threatening way and endangering citizens.

Don't idealize the 'poor downtrodden' workers that were peacefully protesting...the draft riots of New York were far from peaceful, the Union strikes of the early days were loaded with corruption on both sides.  The historical link between mobs and unions is well documented.

Talking about such things in conjunction to a moment like this is like saying "He thinks he's so cool, NOT!".... I don't think that is going to garner any 'recognition for anyone else.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 5, 2005)

I think that a teacher has quite a bit more influence on our freedom's protection then a soldier.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 5, 2005)

Just a question about waht really happened: was I the writer who posted the piece that said it wasn't reporters, or poets, or organizers, etc., who "gave," us our rights, but only soldiers?


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 5, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> No one is saying that it is the sole resonsibility of soldiers...simply honoring one that did it to a level of selflessness that deserves recognition.
> 
> Yes, soldiers/LEO have and will continue to shoot citizens that are waving pick ax handles, behaving in a threatening way and endangering citizens.
> 
> ...



I thought this thread was split off from the other...

Consequently, someone reminded us all that soldiers take an oath to defend the Constitution.  If a group of disenfranchised citizens takes to the streets because they have no other options and their rights have been trampled on for far too long, is it still okay to shoot them?

And yes, it was pointed out that a soldier gives us so many things...



> It is the soldier, not the reporter, Who has given us freedom of the press.
> It is the soldier, not the poet, Who has given us freedom of speech.
> It is the soldier, not the organizer, Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate.
> It is the soldier, Who salutes the flag, Who serves beneath the flag,
> ...



This is what really stirred the pot because it isn't true.  I'm going to contradict this anytime I hear it.


----------



## rutherford (Apr 5, 2005)

Whether the right is given by a philosopher who expresses a doctrine of rights, a journalist uses the right to inform the public, or a soldier who defends those rights is really a chicken and an egg kind of arguement.  And, it's really rather pointless when you consider that Freedom of the Press takes all of these elements working together to exist.  None is more or less important.

All rights are the same.  They must be recognized, they must be excercised, and they must be defended.


rmcrobertson, when talking about "slams", real or imagined, it would be wise to use a less combative tone and clean language.  Your likelyhood of being taken seriously would increase.


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 5, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I thought this thread was split off from the other...


 It was.  To capitalize on Mr. Billing's explanation, the first few posts of the original thread were indicative of remembrance - a post containing only a period or a period and a :asian:.  

 Those posts were placed in the Hall of Remembrance and all are very welcome to post their dot of silence or RESPECTFUL comments there.

 It appeared that some wished to debate the nature of who gave us freedom, so those posts have been split off here.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 5, 2005)

You know, it continues to strike me as odd that posting a pretty aggressive attack on poets, reporters, and the rest of them liberal flag-burnin' pantywaists is in no way offensive--but oh boy, let somebody say anything about that, and suddenly admonishments on language are everywhere. 


Not to mention the fact that I'm hard-pressed to find what was so naughty about the language in a post that ended with, "All honor to them for that."

Then too, if we must split the thread--why wasn't it split starting with the post that dragged the right-wing rhetoric into a thread that was simply meant as a commemoration?

I don't expect to win converts. I expect, from time to time, to say a little something about the jingoism.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Apr 5, 2005)

> I don't expect to win converts. I expect, from time to time, to say a little somethinhg about the jingoism and bias.



I just wish people would stay on topic and not make every thread an issue, when there may not have been one.

Just my thoughts, as I do not expect people to listen or to learn or take hints, but I do expect to make comments sometimes that people do not like, in the hopes that they do not go home with their toys or cry that they are being punished or abused.

Yet, some cannot see past the title on this forum, and did not or could not see past the education level(s) of myself or others. Somme people live in their own worlds, and expect everyone else to follow along, even if they say they do not expect it.


Once again personal opinion and comment. I know not all will understand nor look past it.

Peace
 :asian:


----------



## ginshun (Apr 5, 2005)

> Just a question about waht really happened: was I the writer who posted the piece that said it wasn't reporters, or poets, or organizers, etc., who "gave," us our rights, but only soldiers?


 I in no way deny that reporters, poets, organizers, ect. have done a lot to give us the freedoms that we have today. If you had made a thread honoring a reporter for the work he/she did towards the freedoms we now hold dear, I would not have felt the need to minimize that persons effort by naming a bunch of soldiers and proclaiming how they also did a lot toward granting us said freedoms.




   Adepts post probably should be part of this thread though, as I see now that that was the instegation for your post.


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 5, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> You know, it continues to strike me as odd that posting a pretty aggressive attack on poets, reporters, and the rest of them liberal flag-burnin' pantywaists is in no way offensive--but oh boy, let somebody say anything about that, and suddenly admonishments on language are everywhere.
> 
> 
> Not to mention the fact that I'm hard-pressed to find what was so naughty about the language in a post that ended with, "All honor to them for that."
> ...


 If you have a problem with how the thread was moderated then, by all means, complain to the administration.  That would the intelligent, appropriate thing to do.

 And your comments about the "jingoism" might be better received if not placed in a thread designed to honor a dead man.


----------



## Fortis (Apr 5, 2005)

One of the best ways to argue a point is to sympathize with the opposite view first. The best diplomats do it.

Having said that, this debate doesn't make a lot of sense to me in that, fundamentally, everyone seems to agree with the merits of both sides. Some are just choosing to be more inflamed about it and look for an argument where there isn't one.

This thread got off the topic of everyone being able to be a hero sometime ago.

To the Medal of Honor recipient...*bow*


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 5, 2005)

Mr. Parsons:

I do not consider your remarks about, "some people," appropriate, and I would appreciate it if you would not go any further with them.

As for the other comments, well, my main points would be that a) I was responding to somebody who'd already hijacked the thread with a gratuitous slam at his fellow Americans, which he saw fit to post on a commemorative thread, b) I suspect somehow that grownups can distinguish between my repeated respect for the soldier and a mild criticism of a nonsensical bit of writing, c) it seems very clear that all sorts of offensive comments are perfectly OK, provided that they are rightist; d) this isn't a thread, "honoring a dead man,"  since one of the moderators saw fit to put THAT discussion in another place entirely.

I am sorry that, again, some of you folks see fit to attack personally rather than simply to deal with the ideas--especially since, whatever you may think, I seldom write that way. But it seems to me that if we're going to criticize the whole idea of jingoism, I'd have to say that one of its hallmarks is an inability to tolerate even the slightest divergance from the party line.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Apr 5, 2005)

Nothing against Sergeant Smith...he certainly deserved the "Blue Max," but here's a Jarhead who probably should have gotten it as well.

http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/lookupstoryref/200456162723

Single-handedly assaulting an enemy trench and taking out twenty armed Iraqis isn't good enough, apparently.

Cheez...


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Flatlander (Apr 5, 2005)

*Mod Note*:


Discussion of contemporary American political jingoism split off to here.  Please continue the original topic here, please.

-Dan Bowman-
-MT Moderator-


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 5, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Nothing against Sergeant Smith...he certainly deserved the "Blue Max," but here's a Jarhead who probably should have gotten it as well.
> 
> http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/lookupstoryref/200456162723
> 
> ...


Sometimes it depends on those who are willing to submit and chase the recomendations...if no one thought to do it, he will not be considered.

Is this one being investigated?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 5, 2005)

Here is a good site upon which to find information about people who were not soldiers, but who fought, and in some cases died, to, "give," us our rights:

http://www.iww.org/unions/iu120/


----------



## Tgace (Apr 5, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> a) I was responding to somebody who'd already hijacked the thread with a gratuitous slam at his fellow Americans, which he saw fit to post on a commemorative thread.


The poster was from Australia.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 5, 2005)

I would say the Revolutionary War soldiers "gave" us our rights. Soldiers have helped preserve them ever since.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 5, 2005)

1. So being from Australia, he couldn't have been off base in any way.

2. Here's another site on which to find some info about folks who fight to defend our rights:

http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/nkk/documents/philcarter.pdf 

3. Before you crank up, Mr. Carter is a retired Army officer.

4. And perhaps some people fantasize that love of their country is best exemplified by a flag-waving actor's maudlin website.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 5, 2005)

No, just stating fact.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 5, 2005)

Hm. Well, that's not what the Declaration says, and it ain't what Washington said, neither.

Just stating facts.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 5, 2005)

Thats right, you were mistaken about that too werent you?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The Declaration said we were "endowed" with certain rights (by our creator). The Crown was withholding them from us, so soldiers "gave" them back to us.


----------



## Sapper6 (Apr 5, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The military is just another profession.  Like any other.  Respect them as humans.  Anything more must be earned.



i certainly hope that this doesn't turn into a soldier bashing thread.  IMO, any man or women that raises their hand to the oath and puts on the uniform has done that already.  just another profession?  name any other job where you are called at home with 72 hours notice, pack an over-night bag, kiss your wife and child goodbye and not come back home for 18-24 months?  all the while, you are in a strange land where everyday there is someone else who woke up in that country with the sole purpose in mind to put a bullet in your head.  in a country as you drive down a dirt highway apprehensive to pass by a soda can lying to the side of the road because it could be packed with C4 waiting the blow the second you drive by it.  in a country that while walking to take a piss in the latrine, an RPG whizzes dangerously overhead and explodes against the wall of the latrine you were walking toward.  in a country where hodgies can walk right up to your perimeter and throw molatov cocktails at your tent and you're forbidden to fire upon them because it's a group of hodgie children, and God forbid you take the life of a civilian or child over there.  the Communist News Network and the rest of our "fine example of free speech" media would burn you at the stake with anti-war programming and news.  and when that soldier does return home, the child he left as a newborn is now walking up-right on their own and hasn't a clue of who the hell you are.

so enlighten us all; how many other professions can say they do this?

and yes, the American Soldier gave you every right you have.  nobody is saying they are any better than the virtual warriors who sit here and shoot their mouths off.  but they certainly deserve the respect.  they have earned it.

i'm gonna leave this thread before i lose my martialtalk membership.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 5, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> i certainly hope that this doesn't turn into a soldier bashing thread. IMO, any man or women that raises their hand to the oath and puts on the uniform has done that already. just another profession? name any other job where you are called at home with 72 hours notice, pack an over-night bag, kiss your wife and child goodbye and not come back home for 18-24 months? all the while, you are in a strange land where everyday there is someone else who woke up in that country with the sole purpose in mind to put a bullet in your head. in a country as you drive down a dirt highway apprehensive to pass by a soda can lying to the side of the road because it could be packed with C4 waiting the blow the second you drive by it. in a country that while walking to take a piss in the latrine, an RPG whizzes dangerously overhead and explodes against the wall of the latrine you were walking toward. in a country where hodgies can walk right up to your perimeter and throw molatov cocktails at your tent and you're forbidden to fire upon them because it's a group of hodgie children, and God forbid you take the life of a civilian or child over there. the Communist News Network and the rest of our "fine example of free speech" media would burn you at the stake with anti-war programming and news. and when that soldier does return home, the child he left as a newborn is now walking up-right on their own and hasn't a clue of who the hell you are.
> 
> so enlighten us all; how many other professions can say they do this?
> 
> ...


Ditto...same...out.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 5, 2005)

Ah yes, the "Communist News network," very nice, would this be the one that Ted Turner--well known for his espousal of the precepts of Comrade Lenin and Comrade Mao--started? Nothing like those billionarie Commie rats!

Nobody has yet ragged on soldiers. Some of us have objected to the constant demands that everybody adhere strictly to the right-wing Party Line.

Please show me where it says in the Declaration, in the Constitution, or anywhere else in this country's basic documents and laws, that soldiers "gave," us our rights. 

These documents actually suggest that we have certain "natural," rights as our inheritance--they're just there--and that, "governments," are instituted among people to protect these rights as is best possible.

I am sorry that you take such strong exception to the spectacle of Americans actually exercising their rights of free speech, wherever they came from. Me, I rather enjoy it.


----------



## ghostdog2 (Apr 5, 2005)

```
Please show me where it says in the Declaration, in the Constitution, or anywhere else in this country's basic documents and laws, that soldiers "gave," us our rights. 
..... "governments," are instituted among people to protect these rights as is best possible.
```
Neither the DOI, the Constitution nor the laws and documents of the U.S. are self-activating. The gov't "protect(s) these rights" , as you put it, by force of arms. "These rights" were brought into existence by force and reflect values worth dying for . Usually, that dying is done by members of the organized military and police forces. Thanks.
P.S. With deference to Sapper 6, I'm willing to say that "they" are indeed better than the virtual warriors of the internet. Real trumps virtual every time.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 5, 2005)

You'all sound like Jack Nicholson in his hubristic best character from 'A Few Good Men'; pompous, arrogant, and willing to break the rules to suit your own opinion.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 5, 2005)

The Declaration clearly says, and the Constitution certainly implies strongly, that our rights are indeed, 'self-activating.' I might add that I already mentioned the, "Starship Troopers," theory that, "force, naked force, has solved more issues," than any other thing in our history. And I do not subscribe to it. If you're curious about why, I'd sugest that you contemplate the late Pope.

My other point would be that there are a lot of people in this country who fought, and got ruined, and who died, for our rights--over things like retirement benefits, and decent wages, and insurances, and reasonable working conditions, they got killed.

I'll say it AGAIN, since it seems convenient to overlook the pervious five or six times: all honor to the men and the women in our armed forces. And the cops, if you like. But all honor too to the women and the men who got lynched, beat, shot, hanged, blown up, and god knows what else, to secure the liberties and the decencies that some of us take for granted.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 5, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> i certainly hope that this doesn't turn into a soldier bashing thread.



No body is bashing anyone by indicating that one does not need to worship or respect a soldier any more then any other person.  One is only setting the record straight and perhaps sending a counter message to the militaristic one our society propagates.



			
				Sapper6 said:
			
		

> IMO, any man or women that raises their hand to the oath and puts on the uniform has done that already.



Anyone can swear an oath.  Following it with your actions is worthy of respect.  With some actions, a soldier follows his oath.  With others, they follow the whim of the politicians.  And that whim may indeed be dark.  

And apparently, by law now, one cannot refuse service no matter how much one may disagree with the ideology.  (I'm referring to the case of the soldiers who ran to Canada rather participate in stealing Iraqi oil.  Apparently, they feel that stealing is wrong and that they did not swear to do that when they joined the service.)



			
				Sapper6 said:
			
		

> just another profession?  name any other job where you are called at home with 72 hours notice, pack an over-night bag, kiss your wife and child goodbye and not come back home for 18-24 months?  all the while, you are in a strange land where everyday there is someone else who woke up in that country with the sole purpose in mind to put a bullet in your head.  in a country as you drive down a dirt highway apprehensive to pass by a soda can lying to the side of the road because it could be packed with C4 waiting the blow the second you drive by it.  in a country that while walking to take a piss in the latrine, an RPG whizzes dangerously overhead and explodes against the wall of the latrine you were walking toward.



Sure, being a soldier is dangerous, but I'm willing to bet a firefighter in a major city or a cop in a dangerous precinct puts their butt on the line just as often.  Heck, I was a volunteer fireman for many years and I had to pull my butt out of the fire (literally) many times.  

Further, the questions becomes why the job is so dangerous.  

Take Iraq for instance.  We are there not to fight terror or hunt down some WMD or even tackle an insane dictator or any of the other lies we've been told.  We are there for political reasons.  We are there to "civilize" and reform Islam by force.  We are there to secure our national interest and to stabalize the region for our business.  Basically, we are there for the exact same reasons other countries invaded.  Imperialism.  All of this is part of the Project for the New American Century which was written by many of the most powerful people in the administration.  They also have said that the cost of this war would be paid by Iraqi Oil Wealth, because they owed it to us.  This is taking place whether they like it our not.  

You know what folks?  That is stealing?  Is it any wonder why the most frequently targeted peices of infrastructure are the damned oil pipelines?  Worse, 200,000 hooligans who like to blow up bombs and families conveniently found a target and lots of collateral damage.  

Hmmm, I wonder why people would be so pissed.



			
				Sapper6 said:
			
		

> in a country where hodgies can walk right up to your perimeter and throw molatov cocktails at your tent and you're forbidden to fire upon them because it's a group of hodgie children, and God forbid you take the life of a civilian or child over there.



Yes, god forbid it!

Warning - Graphic Photos 

You want to shoot some kids?  Blow them up?  Have at it.  Apparently people on the Right think this **** is somehow fine and dandy.  They are the enemy.  They are collateral damage.  They also may have happened to be pissed that their country was in chaos and that the Americans were stealing their wealth.  Well, now they are dead.



			
				Sapper6 said:
			
		

> the Communist News Network and the rest of our "fine example of free speech" media would burn you at the stake with anti-war programming and news.



Fascist Jingoism at its finest.



			
				Sapper6 said:
			
		

> and when that soldier does return home, the child he left as a newborn is now walking up-right on their own and hasn't a clue of who the hell you are.



Yup.  Their family may be in shambles.  Their businesses may be in ruins.  And they may not even be whole...as in parts blown off.  Oh yeah, they also come home and get their benefits cut.  They come home and get forgotten because no body wants to know what exactly they did.  It's a god damned tragedy the way our soldiers are used and abused by the politicians.  A good man takes an oath to protect something he loves and ends up filling the coffers of a bunch of rich white men.



			
				Sapper6 said:
			
		

> and yes, the American Soldier gave you every right you have.  nobody is saying they are any better than the virtual warriors who sit here and shoot their mouths off.  but they certainly deserve the respect.  they have earned it.



No, they did not, and if you actually took the time to learn a little history, you'd know this.  Of course, that would take work and its far easier to shoot off your mouth and join the unthinking jingoist chorus out there.  Its far easier to spread these American myths so that others fall into the trap.  Oh yes, its much easier.  

Easter Bunny and Santa Claus anyone?



			
				Sapper6 said:
			
		

> i'm gonna leave this thread before i lose my martialtalk membership.



Fine.  Apparently the thought that everyone works together to make our country great and protect our freedoms is so repugnant that one cannot trust himself to act civil.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Rich Parsons (Apr 5, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Mr. Parsons:
> 
> I do not consider your remarks about, "some people," appropriate, and I would appreciate it if you would not go any further with them.
> 
> ...




Mr Robertson,

I have no idea why you feel the way you do. I never said anything about you personally, only quoted you as that line triggered a thought in my brain. I gave credit to the trigger.

As to attacking personally, why do you call people "Sparky", and request to be called Mr Robertson or dealt with in some form of respect when you offer none? But that post was not about you pe se, unless you believe it was then I cannot stop you from thinking what you think. That is not my fault, as you have said similiar things yourself. Yet, I do not think we need to discuss the posting habits here as I did not mean it as a personal attack. Just some personal comments.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 6, 2005)

It's the damndest thing.

When I was a kid, they taught me that a lot of soldiers died to defend democracy and dissent, and that--unlike too many other places!--in THIS country, you were encouraged to say what you thought. After all, your right to say what you thought was what a lot of men and women fought and died for.

Gee, I hope they weren't lying.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 6, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Sure, being a soldier is dangerous, but I'm willing to bet a firefighter in a major city or a cop in a dangerous precinct puts their butt on the line just as often. Heck, I was a volunteer fireman for many years and I had to pull my butt out of the fire (literally) many times.
> 
> Further, the questions becomes why the job is so dangerous.
> 
> ...


Other than the obviously political agenda laced comments about 'politics' from one that has to toe the line with state standards about education even though you may be working against your personal ideals but feels completely free to criticize other civil servants that do their job as professionals should......AND is ignoring the fact that there are clear rules of engagement and UCMJ law that delineate lawful and unlawful orders and practices AND a JAG unit and Inspector General's office that is in place to address any ethical problems...the Abu Grav and other prisoner abuses didn't go unchecked did they?

let us address this tid bit.

There may be an inherent risk when you are at the scene or punch the clock at an LEO's job or a firefighter's job but the risk of that danger jumping into  bed with you while you are trying to deal with the separation from family and friends, have lost the high numbers of fellow soldiers and brothers/sisters in arms that have become your surrogate family....is not even close to a serviceman/woman's life.

You are a soldier/sailor/Coast Guard sailor/Marine 24 hours a day.  You can work 24 hours a day for long stretches of time in ways that doesn't compare to civilian jobs...even Emergency service jobs that can be just as dangerous in a statistical way when you are on the clock.

Does this make them more worthy of respect than a fellow human being that is living with his parents at 45, works as a fry cook at a food chain and hasnn't done much else with his/her life?  In my opinion, yes.  Does that mean that one deserves more 'humane treatment' or dignified treatment on a one on one case, no.

If respect is earned, I would say servicemen/women - in a professional sense - do deserve a measure of respect more than others may.  That does not mean that other professions/jobs don't deserve some respect though.

I am reminded of the "Incredibles" for some reason with this line of discussion......


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 6, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Fine. Apparently the thought that everyone works together to make our country great and protect our freedoms is so repugnant that one cannot trust himself to act civil.
> 
> upnorthkyosa


And why does respecting someone/group based on the demands of the work and the sacrifices it requires automatically a way of bashing others?  That is an interpretive assumption on your part IMO.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 6, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Other than the obviously political agenda laced comments about 'politics' from one that has to toe the line with state standards about education even though you may be working against your personal ideals but feels completely free to criticize other civil servants that do their job as professionals should......AND is ignoring the fact that there are clear rules of engagement and UCMJ law that delineate lawful and unlawful orders and practices AND a JAG unit and Inspector General's office that is in place to address any ethical problems...the Abu Grav and other prisoner abuses didn't go unchecked did they?



btw - it was the free press that broke the Abu Ghraib news to the world, not the military.  Now, it turns out that the abuses were far more widespread...But that is in another thread.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> There may be an inherent risk when you are at the scene or punch the clock at an LEO's job or a firefighter's job but the risk of that danger jumping into bed with you while you are trying to deal with the separation from family and friends, have lost the high numbers of fellow soldiers and brothers/sisters in arms that have become your surrogate family....is not even close to a serviceman/woman's life.



I still disagree.  Many jobs in the military are support in nature and are insulated from conflict.  A friend of mine is being shipped right now with the Air Guard.  He will be stationed in Qatar.  I don't suspect he'll see much fighting or anything too dangerous.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> You are a soldier/sailor/Coast Guard sailor/Marine 24 hours a day.  You can work 24 hours a day for long stretches of time in ways that doesn't compare to civilian jobs...even Emergency service jobs that can be just as dangerous in a statistical way when you are on the clock.



You can also have long periods of boredom and inactivity.  I'm sure you may have experienced that in Bosnia.  My cousin sure did his share of sitting around.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Does this make them more worthy of respect than a fellow human being that is living with his parents at 45, works as a fry cook at a food chain and hasn't done much else with his/her life?  In my opinion, yes.  Does that mean that one deserves more 'humane treatment' or dignified treatment on a one on one case, no.



Worthy of more respect?  Again, actions will determine this for me.  A soldier who participates without reservation in an activity I consider to be wrong (like stealing) will not get my respect.  I do not consider Iraq to be a "just war" and I do not consider serving in Iraq worthy of additional respect.  Orders may be orders, but every soldier is still an individual and may decide for themselves based on what they believe.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> If respect is earned, I would say servicemen/women - in a professional sense - do deserve a measure of respect more than others may.  That does not mean that other professions/jobs don't deserve some respect though.



Again, it all depends on the actions taken by the individual.  If a soldier is engaged in an immoral conflict based on a premise of lies and fear, whose real purpose is imperialism, reforming a people by force, and securing natural resources for a wealthy elite, I do not consider that to be an action worthy of additional respect.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 6, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> And why does respecting someone/group based on the demands of the work and the sacrifices it requires automatically a way of bashing others?  That is an interpretive assumption on your part IMO.



Real threats to our freedom do not use force.  They use pens and words.  Soldiers cannot fight these threats and therefore are not the ONLY defenders of our freedom.  

Moreover, soldiers did not "give us" our freedoms because of the above.

Perhaps it should be noted that education is the true protector of our freedom.  Education, democracy, and citizenship will keep this country the beautiful place it is.

We all serve in our own part and each is equally important.


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 6, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> btw - it was the free press that broke the Abu Ghraib news to the world, not the military. Now, it turns out that the abuses were far more widespread...But that is in another thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And I was talking about accountability not exposure...

"Every Marine is a rifleman first"  this is at least partly true of the other branches as well.  If they aren't there directly, so what, they 'might be' to a higher degree than anyone else.

YOu bet we did, and I would rather than than the 'excitement' that I could have had on a regular basis....but I was there and honored my oath and would have done/did my job when things were potentially 'exciting.'

Yes, soldiers have to power to decide and can refuse unlawful orders and will be held accountable if they don't, so we don't 'respect' them because of these people?

Well, based on your perception of the whole Iraq situation EVERY servicemember is short of your respect.....


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 6, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Well, based on your perception of the whole Iraq situation EVERY servicemember is short of your respect.....



Not short of my respect.  I have more empathy then that.  Good men and women sign up in the hopes of serving this country and can be forced to do immoral things that may even be lawful.  What do you do then?

Suck it up and gut it out I guess...but that ain't worthy of additional respect.  

A little research would have turned up that doing lawful but immoral things happened to be a risk in the military.  Not one that I would take.


----------



## Brother John (Apr 6, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> There is some evidence that the cited poem is not the work of Father O'Brien, but rather a Charles Michael Province.
> 
> Strange, the showing disrespect for members of our society that are not in the military does not make you sick. Oh, Well.


I really didn't think it was showing disrespect, but to each their own. 
That's the thing about our country, it takes ALL of us. 
The Soldier may have affirmed and defended our right to do all of these things and have these freedoms, but it's up to those of us entitled to those freedoms to exercise them, appreciate them and fight for them by means other than the weaponry of war.
True; each side must be respected for their role. But I don't begrudge a soldiers right to express pride in their role, they earned it.

Your Brother
John


----------



## Rich Parsons (Apr 6, 2005)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> I just wish people would stay on topic and not make every thread an issue, when there may not have been one.
> 
> Just my thoughts, as I do not expect people to listen or to learn or take hints, but I do expect to make comments sometimes that people do not like, in the hopes that they do not go home with their toys or cry that they are being punished or abused.
> 
> ...




Freedom of Speach and those who died for it. Is a great thing, but you still must follow all the local laws and regulations or be in trouble with the locals for distrubing the peace or not having the right license to have a parade and such.

This internet forum also has local laws called our rules and guidelines. One of them is to stay on topic and to post in a friendly manner and not insulting nor acusing of others. When people break the rules they either pay the fine like a man, or they whine about it and try to get out of it, or the create a crusade and swear they were persecuted and that thier rights were violated. Martin Luther King had a reason, to stand up and make a statement. many of those here in the internet do not. They have personal agendas and do not care what others think nor care wabout those they hurt. The internet is impersonal. I wonder if people would act as childish in person? If you break the rules, the fine is stay on topic post by a moderator. If it continues then PM is sent. If the PM is received poorly or if the situation continues then the person could be suspended. Just like a driver's license when you get too many speeding tickets. 

My apologies to the actual readers and contributors of this thread and to the family and friends of those this thread was created about for my slightly off topic, but relevant posts.

 :asian:


----------



## Tgace (Apr 6, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> I really didn't think it was showing disrespect, but to each their own.
> That's the thing about our country, it takes ALL of us.
> The Soldier may have affirmed and defended our right to do all of these things and have these freedoms, but it's up to those of us entitled to those freedoms to exercise them, appreciate them and fight for them by means other than the weaponry of war.
> True; each side must be respected for their role. But I don't begrudge a soldiers right to express pride in their role, they earned it.
> ...


Nicely said.

Most of this **** is just wordy ways of saying "you aint all that". Fueled mosty by the side that wasnt.


----------



## davidg553 (Apr 6, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Yes. All those people mentioned, as honorable and important as they were, would have meant nothing if it were not for the soldiers that bought their freedom from the King of England with their blood.


 When someone says soldier, I tend to think of the professional soldier. Its good to keep in mind that the many of those who were technically soldiers were nothing more than ultimately untrained volunteeer's fighting for what they believed in. I'm sure some could argue this but I just don't see the local farmer with limited military training being in the same class as a professional.


----------



## davidg553 (Apr 6, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> btw - it was the free press that broke the Abu Ghraib news to the world, not the military. Now, it turns out that the abuses were far more widespread...But that is in another thread.


 I don't believe that Loki was referring to the "breaking" of the story. His point was that the Abu Grav issue was being dealt with by the Military. IIRC, the investigation was under way before the story was released to the public and that it was broken because of leaks.

 AFAIK, the military was quiet about it prior to the story being widespread because the incident(s) were still under investigation.  Granted, we will never know if they would have released the story once their investigation was over but as you said, thats for another thread


----------



## loki09789 (Apr 6, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Not short of my respect. I have more empathy then that. Good men and women sign up in the hopes of serving this country and can be forced to do immoral things that may even be lawful. What do you do then?
> 
> Suck it up and gut it out I guess...but that ain't worthy of additional respect.
> 
> A little research would have turned up that doing lawful but immoral things happened to be a risk in the military. Not one that I would take.


Empathy is not the same as respect.

So the Jews that didn't revolt and overthrow the guards in concentration camps, but survived places like Auschwitz only deserve a 'measure of respect' but not full respect simply because they chose endurance over a short life?

It is convenient to judge and decide the value of a 'soldier' or anyone else from the position of observer, out of context, with no real comprehension of the situation as it is on the ground.

From our historical perspective post WWII people could say that the Atom Bomb was immoral.  View it from a historical context and viewing ot from the perspective of a Pre-drop America and it might not look so cut and dry.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 6, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Most of this **** is just wordy ways of saying "you aint all that". *Fueled mosty by the side that wasnt*.



Do you really *believe * what I think you are implying?


----------



## Tgace (Apr 6, 2005)

I "respect" a 19 y.o. private in Iraq I dont know 1000% more than a black belt, Soke, GM, Guro, yadda yadda that I dont know. 

And even some that I do.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 6, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Empathy is not the same as respect.
> 
> So the Jews that didn't revolt and overthrow the guards in concentration camps, but survived places like Auschwitz only deserve a 'measure of respect' but not full respect simply because they chose endurance over a short life?
> 
> ...



Auschwitz is not even similar to serving in Iraq.

What makes you think my position is that of the observer, totally out of context and that I have no real comprehension of what is going on?  Couldn't I say the same of you?  Or anyone who isn't directly serving in the situation?  Or perhaps there could be good sources of information.  Perhaps one has learned to be discerning.  Or perhaps my POV simply disagrees with your POV and so *someone * has to be an observer, totally out of context with no comprehension of what is going on.

Viewing Iraq historically is dangerous to the jingo as it stands.  One will find disturbing ties between Saddam, the Bushes and other.  And one will see PNAC for what it truly is.  Imperialism.  So, by all means, veiw this situation historically and learn as much about it as possible.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 6, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> I "respect" a 19 y.o. private in Iraq I dont know 1000% more than a black belt, Soke, GM, Guro, yadda yadda that I dont know.
> 
> And even some that I do.



Why?  You know that soldier about as well as any MAist you meet on the internet.

What makes that person so special?  Sounds like a gang mentality if you ask me.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 6, 2005)

Concept: Respect for the "ideal" vs. respect for the "individual".

I dont think anybody is implying that people should be falling on their faces every time they see a veteran (a la ancient Japan and the Samurai). Or that vets. cant be ******** just like anybody else. I give Clergy an added measure of respect even though some have done some wrong things. I can respect what a person stood for separate from their personal foibles.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 6, 2005)

Perhaps, then, I am a bit more guarded.  Also, I think, I am being fair.

For instance if someone as a BB started to demand respect for that peice of cloth, I would tell them to put up or shut up.  The skill is what I respect.

The same principle is applied to a soldier who takes an oath to protect the country.  I respect action that protects our country.

Is serving in Iraq protecting our country?  In my opinion, no.  

The simple fact of the matter is that our soldiers, our good men and women who signed up and swore for a good cause that they (and I) believe in are being used in an immoral war for the benefit of the elite.  

This is not something, that is deserving of additional respect in my opinion.  Especially given the fact that unfortuneately, historically, our good men and women have often been used for similar actions in our nation's history.  

I won't disrespect someone for joining the military.  I clearly understand that we have a good propaganda machine out there in our society and I have empathy for those who buy into it.  Our education system doesn't have the resources it needs to clear up this mess and really teach history in this country.  

It's a sorry situation.  Fortunately, there are lots of other ways to serve this country.  Other ways where you can do more and live the way you believe is right.

upnorthkosa


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 6, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Concept: Respect for the "ideal" vs. respect for the "individual"



I like to see the ideal in action or else it is rather empty.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Apr 6, 2005)

_
 The simple fact of the matter is that our soldiers, our good men and women who signed up and swore for a good cause that they (and I) believe in are being used in an immoral war for the benefit of the elite._

 I think it matters what *they* think.

 I served in the military, we had to swear to follow the orders of the president.

 If they run out on that oath because they didn't really want to fight: no respect, just disdain
 If they run out on that oath because they don't believe in what they are fighting for: Break even; some respect for taking a stand, lack of respect for breaking the oath
 If they fight for something that I think is right for my sake and they do it for their oath and beliefe: respect and gratttude,
 If they fight for something I think is wrong, but do it because they believe it's right and to serve their oath: respect but no gratitude
 If they fight for something I think is right and for my sake but do it 'just to kill some **********': Gratitude, but no respect.
 If they fight for something they think is wrong but do it for their oath anyway: respect and pity


----------



## Tgace (Apr 6, 2005)

Well said!


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 6, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> _
> The simple fact of the matter is that our soldiers, our good men and women who signed up and swore for a good cause that they (and I) believe in are being used in an immoral war for the benefit of the elite._
> 
> I think it matters what *they* think.
> ...


  :asian: 

 Nicely Put!

 I'm going to think about this for a while and reply...

  :asian:


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 6, 2005)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> And I was talking about accountability not exposure...


I guess you hadn't heard that the United States military has decided to *not* prosecute the soldiers responsible for 17 detainee deaths.

If that's accountable .. I'm the ... well, never mind.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 6, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> I really didn't think it was showing disrespect, but to each their own.
> That's the thing about our country, it takes ALL of us.
> The Soldier may have affirmed and defended our right to do all of these things and have these freedoms, but it's up to those of us entitled to those freedoms to exercise them, appreciate them and fight for them by means other than the weaponry of war.
> True; each side must be respected for their role. But I don't begrudge a soldiers right to express pride in their role, they earned it.
> ...


*IT*, ... *IT*, ... I think it was '*HE*' that was showing disrespect, perhaps a '*THEY*'.

Strange, how you don't quote me where I, also, make the claim that it takes all types of people to make a universe ... here ... http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=374235&postcount=4

That's OK though, I see that Tgace has also ignored that ... but what is odd in that is he spends so much time decrying how predictable 'they' are.


----------



## Brother John (Apr 6, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> *IT*, ... *IT*, ... I think it was '*HE*' that was showing disrespect, perhaps a '*THEY*'.
> 
> Strange, how you don't quote me where I, also, make the claim that it takes all types of people to make a universe ... here ... http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=374235&postcount=4
> 
> That's OK though, I see that Tgace has also ignored that ... but what is odd in that is he spends so much time decrying how predictable 'they' are.



Michael-
Actually I did like what you said there in your other reply. I didn't mean to offend you by not mentioning that. Sorry if I did.

But that's sort of beside the point I think. I took issue with your implication that the poem (the "*IT*" I spoke of) was disrespectful. I think you were reading the disrespect into it. Unless that's not what you were saying, in which case I'm just mistaken. 

Next time I disagree with something you say and feel moved to comment, maybe I'll need to search your other posts to see if there's something in them I agree with.
Equal time and all that.
 :ultracool 
Your Brother
John


----------



## Tgace (Apr 7, 2005)

I dont have that much time...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 7, 2005)

Just a couple of points about reality:

1. Not only the Geneva Convention, not only this country's position in the Nuremberg Trials, but the UCMJ itself are all very specific: a solider, whatever their oath and whatever their loyalties, as an absolute and over-riding responsibility to refuse an illegal order and to report that order to a higher authority. 

An example of such an order would be: you are ordered to torture a prisoner to obtain information. 

2. Is it seriously being argued that the military has launched a self-investigation, so we should all just relax? First, what exactly is the track record for such investigations? Second--anybody who's ever been in, say, the Army--what exactly is your actual lived experience of the value of such self-investigations?

Apropos of this, let's hear for Ronald H. Ridenaur, who served in Vietnam in 1968.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 7, 2005)

Brother John said:
			
		

> Michael-
> Actually I did like what you said there in your other reply. I didn't mean to offend you by not mentioning that. Sorry if I did.
> 
> But that's sort of beside the point I think. I took issue with your implication that the poem (the "*IT*" I spoke of) was disrespectful. I think you were reading the disrespect into it. Unless that's not what you were saying, in which case I'm just mistaken.
> ...


John, 

I hear you, and don't think we need to get into a pissing match over this. 

I did not mean to imply that the poem was disrespectful. It seems to me that the poem was written by a service member, addressed to service members. In that context, it seems completely appropriate. Much as what a coach might say before a big game is appropriate in a locker room, but may not be quite so appropriate on the front page of the Sunday paper. 

If there was an implication on my part, it was that someone was using that poem like a club to shut down a different point of view. As these discussions often branch into tangent topics, I saw the commentary of a poster (or two) as a pre-emptive strike (and then a post-emptive strike) against those of us who think that the military *is not* the only reason the United States exists today. 

I think there are tactful ways of showing respect to a posthumous recipient of the Medal of Honor. I think posting that poem does not fit that discription.

Michael


----------



## Brother John (Apr 7, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> John,
> I hear you, and don't think we need to get into a pissing match over this.
> 
> If there was an implication on my part, it was that someone was using that poem like a club to shut down a different point of view. As these discussions often branch into tangent topics, I saw the commentary of a poster (or two) as a pre-emptive strike (and then a post-emptive strike) against those of us who think that the military *is not* the only reason the United States exists today.
> ...


Thanks man!!! I was mistaken, I now see your point, and agree with you as well.
I really appreciate your taking your time to clarify for me. You're kind of saying that you feel someone(s) was taking a good poem and using it in a negative way. Gotcha.

It's kind of like when someone on the right (though, I myself am mostly 'right') uses the Bible (usually well out of context) to bash their Interpretation down someone else's throat.
Makes me Mad too!                (SOrry...huge tangent) 

Your Brother
John


----------



## Seig (Apr 8, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Just a couple of points about reality:
> 
> 1. Not only the Geneva Convention, not only this country's position in the Nuremberg Trials, but the UCMJ itself are all very specific: a solider, whatever their oath and whatever their loyalties, as an absolute and over-riding responsibility to refuse an illegal order and to report that order to a higher authority.
> 
> ...


Robert,
As someone that has never served in the military, you have never had the little sit down they give you in boot camp. Your first point in theory is correct, and will hold up in a peace time military. The president and congress declared war on terrorism and are using that in Iraq, I will not debate the right or wrong of that as we could argue the ins and outs of that for decades. I am illustrating a point to underscore the rest of my statement. In war time, the UCMJ clearly states that if you disobey the order of a superior officer, you can be summarily executed. 
They reiterate that point to you about 20 times in about 20 different ways when they read you the UCMJ. Now, when I went to Boot, I was 20 years old with two years of college, most of my squad mates were 17 and 18 year olds straight out of high school, I can tell you, the UCMJ scared the living bejeezus out of them. As an older intellectual, it is easy to say, you have the moral right and obligation to disobey that order boy/girl. But as that boy or girl, being told by an armed officer or senior non-com to do it, they will more than likely do it, any moral objections aside. Contrary to what many would like the public to believe, the military does not like it's first four ranks of enlisted personnel to be free thinkers.


----------



## Tgace (Apr 8, 2005)

> 2. Is it seriously being argued that the military has launched a self-investigation, so we should all just relax? First, what exactly is the track record for such investigations? Second--anybody who's ever been in, say, the Army--what exactly is your actual lived experience of the value of such self-investigations?



Court Martial?...the thought of it scared the hell out of me.


----------



## michaeledward (Apr 8, 2005)

Seig said:
			
		

> Robert,
> As someone that has never served in the military, you have never had the little sit down they give you in boot camp. Your first point in theory is correct, and will hold up in a peace time military. The president and congress declared war on terrorism and are using that in Iraq, I will not debate the right or wrong of that as we could argue the ins and outs of that for decades. I am illustrating a point to underscore the rest of my statement. In war time, the UCMJ clearly states that if you disobey the order of a superior officer, you can be summarily executed.
> They reiterate that point to you about 20 times in about 20 different ways when they read you the UCMJ. Now, when I went to Boot, I was 20 years old with two years of college, most of my squad mates were 17 and 18 year olds straight out of high school, I can tell you, the UCMJ scared the living bejeezus out of them. As an older intellectual, it is easy to say, you have the moral right and obligation to disobey that order boy/girl. But as that boy or girl, being told by an armed officer or senior non-com to do it, they will more than likely do it, any moral objections aside. Contrary to what many would like the public to believe, the military does not like it's first four ranks of enlisted personnel to be free thinkers.


Congress abdicated its responsibility. War was not declared on anything, or more importantly, anyone. War can only be declared upon a nation-state. War can not be declared against a military 'tactic'.

The use of the term 'WAR' in the past 40 years has been used as a euphamism for corporate give-aways and government power grabs; WAR on poverty, WAR on drugs, WAR on terrorism, WAR on obesity.

These thoughts may not be most appropriate on this thread, and for that I apologize.  But, if those who have served in the military are going to tell us about the consequences of the UCMJ, they should also be aware of their Constitution, and their Congress.

Mike


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 8, 2005)

having quoted the UCMJ on a previous, similar thread, I'm not going to quote it again.

However, it don't say that in wartime all the rules go out the window. It say that soldiers may be held liable for the crimes they commit (against civilians, for example), and for their actions if they obey an illegal order.

Now, of course that's just the law--the theory, if you will. What happens de facto is likely to be different. But this is not particularly comforting to anybody trying to argue that the military can be trusted to run its own investigations in such matters, because it suggests that they're simply going to paper the whole thing over, "for the good of the service," which translates out roughly as, "to cover some officer's *** or to protect some politician we need on our side for appropriations."

It is shameful, and more to this point it is directly against both the UCMJ and United States law, to excuse torture, murder, etc. (how nice to use an, 'etc.' in such a context) on the grounds that hey, it's wartime. Are there grey areas? Sure. Are there screwups? Sure. Should we show some pity for some kid with a head full of fear and propaganda that we send out there to get shot at? Absolutely we should, and we should stop being sanctimonious about what that kid does, too, since we are also morally responsible.

But as long as we're honoring soldiers who, "gave," us rights, let's hear three cheers for Ronald Ridenaur.


----------



## Seig (Apr 8, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Congress abdicated its responsibility. War was not declared on anything, or more importantly, anyone. War can only be declared upon a nation-state. War can not be declared against a military 'tactic'.
> 
> The use of the term 'WAR' in the past 40 years has been used as a euphamism for corporate give-aways and government power grabs; WAR on poverty, WAR on drugs, WAR on terrorism, WAR on obesity.
> 
> ...


For the most part I agree with you. I have served in the military, and if you look closely at what I wrote, I also stated, because of the fact that I was a little older and more educated, I was not as fearful as most. I am also quite well versed in the Constitution and Congress. The real question is this, since when does Congress give a damn about anyone but themselves?


----------



## Seig (Apr 8, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> having quoted the UCMJ on a previous, similar thread, I'm not going to quote it again.
> 
> However, it don't say that in wartime all the rules go out the window.


No, it says quite the opposite. 


> It say that soldiers may be held liable for the crimes they commit (against civilians, for example), and for their actions if they obey an illegal order.


 No, it does not say that at all. It says that members of the Uniformed Services_ will_ be held accoutable for their actions, period. You are making the assumption that an 18 year old kid out of high school will know an illegal order when he hears one. He has the right to disobey an order he finds morally objectiobale_* but*_ he faces *immediate* disciplinary action for doing so. In a "zone of conflict", he can be summarily executed. This, to my personal knowledge, has not been done since Viet Nam; but it sure as hell will scare a kid fresh from the farm. I do not excuse the action you are condemning, I agree with you. I understand how it can happen.


> Now, of course that's just the law--the theory, if you will. What happens de facto is likely to be different.


Absolutely.





> But this is not particularly comforting to anybody trying to argue that the military can be trusted to run its own investigations in such matters, because it suggests that they're simply going to paper the whole thing over, "for the good of the service," which translates out roughly as, "to cover some officer's *** or to protect some politician we need on our side for appropriations."


 You are way off base on this one. Those that are in positions to investigate these things are people of high moral fibre that take it as a personal insult that anything like this could or would happen and would like nothing more than to convene a firing squad. The internal investigators of the military are ruthless people that would prosecute their own spouses, and then sleep well at night knowing they were righteous.


> It is shameful, and more to this point it is directly against both the UCMJ and United States law, to excuse torture, murder, etc. (how nice to use an, 'etc.' in such a context) on the grounds that hey, it's wartime.


It may be shameful, but it is only against the UCMJ to torture enemy combatants that are members of Geneva Convention and that were in uniform at the time of their capture. It does not apply to subversives, saboteurs, or spies.


> Are there grey areas? Sure. Are there screwups? Sure. Should we show some pity for some kid with a head full of fear and propaganda that we send out there to get shot at? Absolutely we should, and we should stop being sanctimonious about what that kid does, too, since we are also morally responsible.


Another point we agree on.


> But as long as we're honoring soldiers who, "gave," us rights, let's hear three cheers for Ronald Ridenaur.


I can find no other reference to him, who was he?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 9, 2005)

I had trouble finding Internet info about him too--let's just say he was at My Lai.

Sorry, but I cannot buy the notion that the military will do a good job of investigating itself and let us all know about it. That's simply not their history, and has never been their history. Look at the screwups in the Civil War, and the epidemic corruption on both sides; look at the Phillippine Insurrection; look at Vietnam; look at both Gulf Wars--where, admittedly, the military has done a better job of telling the truth than the civilians let alone the CIA.

But their history is CYA; after all, guys like Westmoreland certainly should have gotten a tut-tut or two after Vietnam, what with its free fire zones and all the rest.

I'll agree in one limited sense: at this point, I trust the military to tell the truth more than I trust the Bush government, which is a pretty sad commentary right there. After all, there's a fair list of generals who have been making it known that our latest little military escapade is crazy, and was right from before the start--which starts with Colin Powell, though I have recently seen a couple hints that he too may have been involved in covering up a mess or three in Vietnam.


----------



## TonyM. (Apr 9, 2005)

Coupla folks in my unit were in the 173rd and the puking buzzards in the AO of Mei Lai at the time. They  said they would have arrested Calley as per the Geneva Convention had they known what his platoon was doing. They were not happy campers.


----------

