Honoring those who gave us rights

[Tgace]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Well said!

 

[Makalakumu]

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

:asian:

Nicely Put!

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

:asian:

 

[michaeledward]

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]

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

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]

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]

I dont have that much time...

 

[rmcrobertson]

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]

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

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]

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.

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

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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.