Protest and Dissent is Sometimes Healthy ...

[Sukerkin]

... but hurling abuse at those who truly only did the duty they were called upon to do is not the way to go about it.

http://blogs.militarytimes.com/flig...e-students-harass-retired-gen-david-petraeus/

If you want to protest the wars your country has involved you in, then the persons to address are the ones formulating the policy. Haranguing a retired General might send a 'message' up the ladder, true, but it is far more likely to get the 'protestors' scorned than their grievances heard.

 

[DennisBreene]

Unfortunate, and not unlike the abuse that Vietnam vets were subject to by some of my generation. They say that the frontal lobes of the brain (responsible for social behavior) are not fully developed until about age 25. Clearly, these immature brains have some developmental tasks ahead but I still opt for the right to free speech. It seems apparent that the public response is decidedly against the students (so the public debate of the issue has had opportunity to provide some measure of balance) and at some point in their lives, I hope they have a twinge of regret when they realize how inappropriate their behavior was.

 

[arnisador]

He was a 4-star general and then Director of Central Intelligence--this is not like abusing some grunt just back from Southeast Asia. In general I'm for students being politically involved. In the YouTube video one blocks his path in the street and one is too close and pointing fingers in his face and in both cases that's wrong. But I'm not clear how much of it took place on the university, since in NYC it's hard to tell where university stops and generic office buildings begin.

He certainly handled it with class.

 

[Sukerkin]

I am not really very convinced any more that 'loud' (for want of a better term) protest really does any good. I saw it in my student days with students shouting at a Conservative minister who was the guest of the Tory Bastards Society (that name might be misremembered ). Much hullabaloo, they even threw eggs at her (topical at the time, it was Edwina Curry) which got security involved and all they did was undermine their own political capital as far as I could see.

 

[Makalakumu]

Ultimately, what you are seeing is the failure of politics to solve this problem. Millions of people show up to protest these wars and it gets ignored by the Presstitute media and our leaders just do it anyway. This makes holding the people who volunteer and perpetrate this mess the next logical step to stopping this madness. I firmly believe that everyone who joins the US military this for what ever reason needs to educated about the horror they are about to inflict on people who are absolutely no credible threat to the US. They need to know that the US government is so duplicitous that it "runs" the same Al Qaeda groups that they claim are dangerous to people here. People who join also need to know that the citizens of this country won't stand for that morally. The message should be, "if you join this, we won't have your back. I respect you intent, but the reality is different, understand?"

If politics worked, this sort of thing wouldn't have to happen.

 

[Takai]

Ultimately, what you are seeing is the failure of politics to solve this problem. Millions of people show up to protest these wars and it gets ignored by the Presstitute media and our leaders just do it anyway. This makes holding the people who volunteer and perpetrate this mess the next logical step to stopping this madness. I firmly believe that everyone who joins the US military this for what ever reason needs to educated about the horror they are about to inflict on people who are absolutely no credible threat to the US. They need to know that the US government is so duplicitous that it "runs" the same Al Qaeda groups that they claim are dangerous to people here. People who join also need to know that the citizens of this country won't stand for that morally. The message should be, "if you join this, we won't have your back. I respect you intent, but the reality is different, understand?"

If politics worked, this sort of thing wouldn't have to happen.

I call BS here. Blaming the soldier that joins the military is akin to blaming rape victim. We may not like the wars that our soldiers have fought or the things that they had to do. I am quite certain that they aren't thrilled with them either.

"The we won't have your back" line is arrogant and specious. The reason that you can even type that line is do to the men (and women) that have served before to allow you that freedom.

You say politics doesn't work? Frequently, it doesn't (and yes it should be addressed at the proper level). But the US Soldier is not that level. You would seek to turn them into someone that is so worried about being PC and about being the welcome they will receive from the people that "didn't" go and "don't" like what they did that they would cease to be effectual. War is Hell! All war, period. I find nothing truly redeeming in the loss of lives on both sides. But, it isn't the soldiers job to decide who he should fight. That goes much higher up the chain. You want to solve the "problem". Then that is where you should go. The soldier took an oath to go when call. S/He doesn't ask why, they just go. If for no other reason than that they deserve your respect.

 

[Makalakumu]

but, it isn't the soldiers job to decide who he should fight./QUOTE]

And yet, that choice remains. When a person joins, they really need to look at the character and history of the people who will send them into battle. They should understand who they will be killing and what they will do. The choice occurs when you walk through the recruiters door with a pen in your hand.

There is moral content to this choice as well. America has been responsible for 25 million civilian deaths since WWII. There are areas of this planet that US soldiers have devestated with weapons and generations of unborn will be messed up by these. Mothers and Fathers need to say to their sons and daughters that we don't want you to do this. They need to stress that this is as inappropriate as joining any other gang that willfully murders and destroys with no real intent on defense.

The political failure of the anti-empire movement in the US has many reasons, but it's ultimate result is that individual service people now have to be held to account for the actions that they take over there. This needs to happen to send a message to future generations that says that we do not approve.

You don't get to be a hero for destroying the genetic integrity of a population for generations...for literally shooting the unborn.

 

[arnisador]

I call BS here. Blaming the soldier that joins the military is akin to blaming rape victim.

Nuremberg.

Some people truly believe the Iraq War was an illegal war of aggression and that soldiers should have refused to serve in it for that reason. I don't agree, but--and this is the key difference--I am able to entertain a notion without accepting it.

You say politics doesn't work?

As the saying goes: War is the continuation of politics by other means.

 

[Takai]

Wouldn't that be the politicians that the general populace elected? The US military doesn't make war on its own. It is once again back to the policy makers not, the soldiers.

There is moral content to this choice as well...Mothers and Fathers need to say to their sons and daughters that we don't want you to do this. They need to stress that this is as inappropriate as joining any other gang that willfully murders and destroys with no real intent on defense.

Dictating anyone's morality but your own is a dangerous precedent to set.

You don't get to be a hero for destroying the genetic integrity of a population for generations...for literally shooting the unborn.

44 million. Let that number sink in. That's how many "unborn" we have killed here in the US through abortion. Yet we still herald many of these doctors and politicians heroic status for bringing us this choice.

Nuremberg.

An appropriate venue. Slow but, appropriate. Judges and rules of law being applied. Not 20 year-olds yelling "I can smell blood on you". Look more recently at Abu Garib. Those soldiers were way off the reservation in my mind. Yet their superiors (who must have suffered from sublime ignorance) didn't notice and received a small slap of the wrist. Once is again the problem is originating up the chain but, is ignored. If the superiors didn't notice they certainly weren't in control of their command. And if they were (which I still suspect) then the problem is even greater.

Some people truly believe the Iraq War was an illegal war of aggression and that soldiers should have refused to serve in it for that reason. I don't agree, but--and this is the key difference--I am able to entertain a notion without accepting it.

Excellent. Many people can't.

As the saying goes: War is the continuation of politics by other means.

Agreed. Not always the best means but, it certainly is a continuation of the policies enacted by a government.

 

[Makalakumu]

Dictating anyone's morality but your own is a dangerous precedent to set.

Ok, well let's clarify the moral principles involved here. When the US government asks it's soldiers to go into Fallujah and use DU and White Phosphorus on the populations and then decry the use of chemical weapons when some group in Syria uses sarin gas, what is the moral principle at work here?

Do you think everyone should be proud of those people who used chemical weapons on innocent people?

 

[Takai]

Ok, well let's clarify the moral principles involved here. When the US government asks it's soldiers to go into Fallujah and use DU and White Phosphorus on the populations and then decry the use of chemical weapons when some group in Syria uses sarin gas, what is the moral principle at work here?

Note the bold letters, your argument starts with....the US government. Not the soldiers randomly decide to use WMD against a populace. I will say it again. A specious arguement that moves past the problem and blames the guy at the end.

Do you think everyone should be proud of those people who used chemical weapons on innocent people?

Never once in my arguments have I used the word "proud". I use the word "respect". A distinct difference.

 

[Makalakumu]

Note the bold letters, your argument starts with....the US government. Not the soldiers randomly decide to use WMD against a populace. I will say it again. A specious arguement that moves past the problem and blames the guy at the end.



Never once in my arguments have I used the word "proud". I use the word "respect". A distinct difference.

People in the military are employees of the government. They aren't servants, they get paid and they get hired just like anyone else. That said, I think the job description should include some important aspects like using DU white phosphorus, and fighting for Al Qaeda.

So, if a buddy of mine came up to me and said that had this awesome new job where they got to do those things, should I respect that? What would be the moral principle this respect rested upon?

 

[Takai]

People in the military are employees of the government. They aren't servants, they get paid and they get hired just like anyone else. That said, I think the job description should include some important aspects like using DU white phosphorus, and fighting for Al Qaeda.

Close but, not quite. Most employees can chose to leave their current position to seek another employer. Even under contract in the business world this can be accomplished with a good enough lawyer. In the military this is called desertion. Research how the military deals with that. You might try to argue that they still have a choice but at "X" thousand miles from home options aren't quite what they would appear.

As for Job description...to keep things simple I will stay within just one branch. The US Army classify's each soldier by an MOS (Military Occupation Specialty) each one has...drum roll...a description of duties. What you qualify for is based on your ASVAB and various other criteria. A soldier joining picks what he wants to go for but, that slot is not always guaranteed and the government can change where they want them after the fact. Remember they have them in contract!

Fighting for or against Al Qaeda may seem like a clear cut thing to you but, the Servicemen who sign up 12 years ago to fight them had no idea what the policy shift would be 12 years into the future. Even if the government did (which is a whole other discussion for another thread) they aren't going to tell him because they make the policies.

So, if a buddy of mine came up to me and said that had this awesome new job where they got to do those things, should I respect that? What would be the moral principle this respect rested upon?

The simple fact that they took an oath to go into harm's way for you! So that you have the freedom to sit back and belittle them. The respect is their willingness to give up their life to protect you and the Constitution. You know that document that US government uses for Toilet Paper!

You have can have a great deal of respect for a person and still loath and hate what they stand for. I have tremendous respect to the military acumen of Erwin Rommel "The Desert Fox" the man was an incredible commander, Adolf Hitler was an incredible charismatic leader. I have respect for that. I also think that both of these men were lower than pond scum in the theological and moral ideals.

I think that we are going to end having to agree to disagree. We both see a "problem" in the current course of events. Neither one of us likes the way things are. The issue is that we are both trying to argue about which end of the mobius strip needs to be fixed.

 

[Makalakumu]

Close but, not quite. Most employees can chose to leave their current position to seek another employer. Even under contract in the business world this can be accomplished with a good enough lawyer. In the military this is called desertion. Research how the military deals with that. You might try to argue that they still have a choice but at "X" thousand miles from home options aren't quite what they would appear.

As for Job description...to keep things simple I will stay within just one branch. The US Army classify's each soldier by an MOS (Military Occupation Specialty) each one has...drum roll...a description of duties. What you qualify for is based on your ASVAB and various other criteria. A soldier joining picks what he wants to go for but, that slot is not always guaranteed and the government can change where they want them after the fact. Remember they have them in contract!

Fighting for or against Al Qaeda may seem like a clear cut thing to you but, the Servicemen who sign up 12 years ago to fight them had no idea what the policy shift would be 12 years into the future. Even if the government did (which is a whole other discussion for another thread) they aren't going to tell him because they make the policies.



The simple fact that they took an oath to go into harm's way for you! So that you have the freedom to sit back and belittle them. The respect is their willingness to give up their life to protect you and the Constitution. You know that document that US government uses for Toilet Paper!

You have can have a great deal of respect for a person and still loath and hate what they stand for. I have tremendous respect to the military acumen of Erwin Rommel "The Desert Fox" the man was an incredible commander, Adolf Hitler was an incredible charismatic leader. I have respect for that. I also think that both of these men were lower than pond scum in the theological and moral ideals.

I think that we are going to end having to agree to disagree. We both see a "problem" in the current course of events. Neither one of us likes the way things are. The issue is that we are both trying to argue about which end of the mobius strip needs to be fixed.

Ok, we'll you've made a lot good points, but I still think there needs to be a shift in how normal people view joining the military. I think the image that was portrayed in the past is contradicted by what is happening now and, for lack of better words, people need to get wise to this. I wouldn't want my son to serve in a military that did these kinds of things. I would have no problem if our military and our nation's foreign policy operated more like the Swiss.

Ultimately, I think our major area of diversion is the idea that the military and the foreign policy that guides it are different. I see them as the same. Upon joining, I see a person tacitly agreeing to the foreign policy of that time and of the future.