board77

tolkienpurist wrote:

Jnyusa wrote:

We don't send soldiers into the field with rapid fire weapons because we count on them to have good aim; we send them out to play the odds, to be mowed down in turn, to be deployed and expendable. We don't train them to be effective, we train them to accept killing and dying, we depersonalize them, we turn them into something that can be used. This is the biggest, beastliest delusion of all - that the person with the gun is in control of something. They're not in control of anything, least of all themselves.

sorry, no. You can bash Bush all you want, you can argue we shouldn't have anything more dangerous than a butter knife available to us... you can say what you want about republicans, democrats, the supreme court, how the world is going to hell in a handbasket... most anything you want...

but I will not tolerate people saying that men and women willing to die for this country... willing to take those guns that most of us are unwilling to even go near... willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to protect a country full of people they know only a tiny fraction of... are used and depersonalized, and nothing but tools...

if anyone thinks that of even one soldier that has died in the name of any number of countries allied to fight for freedom and against terror and hatred.... then I suggest you put aside your politics, and spend some time reflecting on what life would be like if those soldiers weren't willing to die for something they believe in.

Ranger edit: Topic split from the Virginia Tech shootings thread, found here: http://www.board77.net/viewtopic.php?t=4822

halplm wrote:

but I will not tolerate people saying that men and women willing to die for this country... willing to take those guns that most of us are unwilling to even go near... willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to protect a country full of people they know only a tiny fraction of... are used and depersonalized, and nothing but tools...

Yes, hal, that is what military training is all about. People who sign up might be under the delusion that they're doing it to defend freedom or their country, but the training they get is pure and simply to turn them into killing machines who are ready to die to follow their orders. That is all they have to do, and all they are taught to do. The glorious warfare rhetoric is just an excuse.

I did not say war was glorious. war sucks, war is evil, war is never right or good.

That does not mean it is never necessary. Was it necessary however many years ago it was we started it? Probably not. Is it necessary now? Absolutely.

I, for one, am glad that people are willing to be trained to follow orders, and yes, save people's lives by following them.

I'm sorry for derailing this thread any, but the only depersonalization of soldiers willing to die for us to have the freedome to have this very discussion... are from the ones saying their sacrifices are pointless...

halplm wrote:

I'm sorry for derailing this thread any, but the only depersonalization of soldiers willing to die for us to have the freedome to have this very discussion... are from the ones saying their sacrifices are pointless...

If one believes that the war had no reasonable point to begin with, then yes, their sacrifices are pointless. But that's not a knock against the soldier, it's a knock against whoever decided to go into an unnecessary war.

(That commentary should be taken generally. If you believe the Iraq war has a good purpose, fine. But it is easy to imagine a leader sending soldiers off to die in a war with no purpose at all.)


eta -

Quote:

I would say that the price tag in terms of increases in accidental and impulsive shootings amongst the section of the population most prone to accidents and impulse (ie, 18-21 year olds) far outweighs that benefit.

A much more reasonable starting point for an argument.

yovargas wrote:

If one believes that the war had no reasonable point to begin with, then yes, their sacrifices are pointless. But that's not a knock against the soldier, it's a knock against whoever decided to go into an unnecessary war.

(That commentary should be taken generally. If you believe the Iraq war has a good purpose, fine. But it is easy to imagine a leader sending soldiers off to die in a war with no purpose at all.)

No, their sacrifices are not pointless. That's about the worst thing you can say IMHO. Why they are there, or what motivations their leaders had is completely irrelevent. They chose to fight for a country they believed in. And they faught as they were trained to fight. As they must be trained to fight to minimize loss of life. They chose to fight and they were willing to die for what they believed in.

Who gave the orders, and why the orders were given does not diminish their sacrifice in any way.

It would be different if it was not their choice (as it hasn't been in the past, and as it isn't in other places in the world)... but in this war, it has been, and they deserve all of our thanks and admiration.

You can hate the war, you can hate the politicians responsible for it, you can hate the politicians trying to undermine the effort right now... but whatever you hate... do not forget that those soldiers are dying for YOU... and they've never even met you.

Quote:

do not forget that those soldiers are dying for YOU

That's what they probably wanted to do. So I admire them for that. But have they actually done that? How many soldiers died in Iraq last week - am I any safer for their deaths?

No one is dying for me. I didn't ask them to die for me. Their deaths are not doing anything except causing more needless grief on top of existing needless grief...and ultimately making even more needless grief likely.

again, whether you asked them to or not, they are still dying for you. They are dying so you can continue to yell and scream that they shouldn't want to die for you.

And the soldiers that died last week absolutely made it safer for us.

If they weren't there, then that bomb could have been put to use more directly against a fledgling Iraqi government, throwing the country into actual chaos... letting a much nastier government take control and who knows what they would be capable of... they'd certainly still be interested in seeing all of us dead.

I'm not going to say more on this subject, as I'm not even sure what I'm arguing for...

Hal, I do agree with you 100%.

freddy

hal, I strongly disagree.

Quote:

No, their sacrifices are not pointless. That's about the worst thing you can say IMHO. Why they are there, or what motivations their leaders had is completely irrelevent.

Absolutely untrue. Let's envision two scenarios.

1: America is under domestic attack by Country X, which seeks to make our country a part of X empire and force us to follow Y religion. American soldiers fight and die so that today's Americans, and those yet to come, can continue to live in a democratic, pluralistic society.

2. A delusional, paranoid American leader decides that the only way to save America is for us to attack Great Britain and impose a new government on the British people. Britain does not take kindly to our invasion and fights back forcefully, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of American and British soldiers. Were it not for the war, Britain would have been our friend and ally - there would have been no significant tension between the countries. Those hundreds of thousands of American soldiers did not die to enable us to preserve our democratic and pluralistic society, for it was not actually threatened by the British. Moreover, hundreds of thousands of British soldiers are now dead. All of those deaths - both American and British - were pointless. I would go one step further and say, their deaths did far more harm than good, in that the deaths on both sides have now severely, perhaps terminally, impacted foreign relations between two significant countries.

It is absolutely relevant to the question of whether a person's sacrifice had any meaning, why a person has been sent into war.

Quote:

They chose to fight for a country they believed in. And they faught as they were trained to fight. As they must be trained to fight to minimize loss of life. They chose to fight and they were willing to die for what they believed in.

That's nice, glorious, and romantic. The reality is that those people have lost their lives - lost their lives in the process (in the aggregate) of taking other lives. And, the collective loss of life has harmed our country financially, morale-wise, foreign relations-wise, and in terms of the loss of productive citizens.

Being willing to die for what you believe in is only commendable if what you believe in is worthwhile - and if your death actually furthers the cause you believe in. If you go into war because you believe A, but really, A is weakened rather than advanced by your being sent into war - then your sacrifice has been worse than futile: your death did more harm than good.

Quote:

Who gave the orders, and why the orders were given does not diminish their sacrifice in any way.

It does not diminish the magnitude of their sacrifice - it merely means that their sacrifice has had no positive consequence/has actually had a negative consequence, making it doubly tragic.

Quote:

You can hate the war, you can hate the politicians responsible for it, you can hate the politicians trying to undermine the effort right now... but whatever you hate... do not forget that those soldiers are dying for YOU... and they've never even met you.

No, they are not dying for me. If their deaths furthered my ability "to yell and scream that they shouldn't want to die for [me]," then I would agree with you. But they have not advanced my ability to "yell and scream" in any way, by waging a pointless battle that has devastated a nation (or is that two?) and further destabilized one of the most volatile regions in the world.

Of course I do not hate the soldiers - many of them kids my age or younger. But the very fact that they are not dying for me, or anyone else in this country, causes me to feel hatred for those who have sent innocent youth to die, futilely, thousands of miles away from home.

halplm wrote:

again, whether you asked them to or not, they are still dying for you. They are dying so you can continue to yell and scream that they shouldn't want to die for you.

And the soldiers that died last week absolutely made it safer for us.

If they weren't there, then that bomb could have been put to use more directly against a fledgling Iraqi government, throwing the country into actual chaos... letting a much nastier government take control and who knows what they would be capable of... they'd certainly still be interested in seeing all of us dead.

I'm not going to say more on this subject, as I'm not even sure what I'm arguing for...

halplm, with all due respect, the soldiers are not dying so anyone "can continue to yell and scream that they shouldn't want to die for you."

They are dying because a cynical, corrupt, venal, hypocritical administration ORDERED them to go there. The first soldiers there might have had some illusion that they were there for a good cause, but that's not true now.

Throwing Iraq into chaos? For the love of god, halplm, how much more chaos could there be?

I admire the courage of the men and women who go where they are ordered to go, but at some point they would be wise to say, "No more."

A good soldier is not supposed to obey a bad order. That was one thing we were supposed to have learned after WW II.

The soldiers that have died in Iraq have not made YOU one whit safer, their deaths have been utterly meaningless. The invasion of Iraq has made the US less safe, not more.

If there was a god? He would have blown that booby-faced nitwit Bush into smithereens.

vison and purist, I think your hatred for Bush has clouded your judgment on the war on terrorism.

I work with two men that have VOLUNTEERED to go to Iraq. Both will tell you that they would go back in a heartbeat if they could. Each will also tell you of the wonderful things they saw and how the people appreciate our involvment.

One has a step son that went to Iraq. His humvee took a direct hit from an IED. Scott lost an eye, most of his arm, and had large amounts of schrapnel in his body. His is alive today and wants to go back because he believes in what he is doing. He will be going to Afganistan soon.

Finally, if the "insurgents" stopped their attacks then we would quickly and quietly leave. These "insurgents", the majority, are NOT Iraqi citizens. They are from Syria, Iran, etc fighting and attacking the US soldiers. If their nations would take control and stop the border crossing and fighting then the US would have been on the way out many months ago.

freddy

I formally request the Iraq discussion be split off into a thread I can then ignore.

Feredir wrote:

vison and purist, I think your hatred for Bush has clouded your judgment on the war on terrorism.

I work with two men that have VOLUNTEERED to go to Iraq. Both will tell you that they would go back in a heartbeat if they could. Each will also tell you of the wonderful things they saw and how the people appreciate our involvment.

One has a step son that went to Iraq. His humvee took a direct hit from an IED. Scott lost an eye, most of his arm, and had large amounts of schrapnel in his body. His is alive today and wants to go back because he believes in what he is doing. He will be going to Afganistan soon.

Finally, if the "insurgents" stopped their attacks then we would quickly and quietly leave. These "insurgents", the majority, are NOT Iraqi citizens. They are from Syria, Iran, etc fighting and attacking the US soldiers. If their nations would take control and stop the border crossing and fighting then the US would have been on the way out many months ago.

freddy

You believe what you believe, Freddy, and I can understand why you do. I'd be pretty surprised if you didn't.

But the facts don't bear you out.

I just pity the families in the US and Iraq who have suffered such huge losses.

One of my cousins is a very, very high-ranking officer in the Canadian army. He has served several tours of duty in Afghanistan. His views on the matter of the "anti-terror war" in Iraq are very interesting, and completely opposite from yours. He knows the place very well, knows the people, knows the issues.

However, it's not worth arguing about. I do enough of that in Manwe.

Bashing the Viet Nam Vets actually didn't work at ending that war any faster either. Some of us know that, maybe it's from experience, maybe its from knowing too many bitter Nam vets.

Ara-anna wrote:

Bashing the Viet Nam Vets actually didn't work at ending that war any faster either. Some of us know that, maybe it's from experience, maybe its from knowing too many bitter Nam vets.

No one is "bashing" any vets. My point is, that the men and women who have died in Iraq were "wasted", to use a Viet Nam word. A waste of human life and potential in a war entered into by deceit and arrogance, that has not served America's interests.

If there are indeed any American serving in Iraq who think they should be there and that it is serving their country's interest, who here or anywhere is "bashing them"? I believe they are mistaken, but I am not impugning their courage.

One of my Texas cousins served in both Korea and Viet Nam. He supported the war in Viet Nam at first, but not at the end. He raised the point, many times, that in the Bush Administration the ones enthusiastic for war had no combat experience (including Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld, despite both having been in the military during Viet Nam) and that the concerns of such men as Gen. Colin Powell were ignored.

I guess there are still some Americans who think that the invasion of Iraq was the right thing to do, but the number lessens every day.

At any rate, this isn't Manwe and I'm outa here.

I just wanted to make it clear that I'm not bashing any veterans.

vison, I wasn't looking to argue, just voice my opinion. This is one of the topics I don't approach often because it is such a hot button. It can turn reasonable people into raving lunatics (neither being us).


freddy

It is not the soldiers fault, and 95% of all service men and women I know would never disobey an order. They are not over there fighting for Bush, they are overthere upholding their duty. Bush has sent them into a situation that is bad and lead the country into a war that was not completely justifiable.

But lets not forget that Sadam was a killer and did horrible things. Even if the war is a mistake and Bush had decieved us, we at least have to give him the credit of ridding the world of Sadam. I am not sure the next ruler of Iraq will be any better and I am sure the Bush handling of things is wrong. But I also know its not the soldiers fault, they took oaths and they honor those oaths. The person responsible for those soldiers being there is a liar and continues to be. He took two decorated veterns and dismantled them piece by piece, and never once served any time in any conflict. He has an adictive personality. And yet because he hasn't had any affairs (that we know) and because he supported banning gay marriage (which he couldn't have given two flying rodents butts about) he was elected. He pandered to the anti-gay religeous folks to the point that people were afraid of gay marraige without realizing that marriage laws are state laws not federal, destroyed two war vets, made cuts our homeland infrastructure budget by amounts that make me want to puke, refuses to compromise at all with anyone, and wants to drag this war on as long as possible with increased troop amounts, yet because he didn't get a blow job from an intern under his desk we don't get rid of him. I am pretty sure that a good lawyer could make wasting billions of dollars on a lie into an impeachable offense.

And Bush and his cronies and ideals do not represent the majority of the US.

Jeez, Ara-Anna, you should learn to express yourself more forcefully!!!

Yes, of course I agree with you on Pres. Bush.

Let us hope, in all sincerity, that the next President of the US is a better person than he is.

I saw him being interviewed by Charlie Rose last night, or rather, I saw a little of it. I couldn't watch the whole thing. I really wonder, and I am not being sarcastic nor am I joking: has he had a stroke or two? Is it the result of all those drugs and all that alcohol? There is something seriously wrong with the man.

I always figured that good soldiers are ones who are conditioned to accept their deaths. I doubt we'd have won the day in Normandy if all of the soldiers were afraid.

That being said, I too think that Iraq is just wasting human lives. Maybe they are lives that could have better been used elsewhere, maybe not. I don't know for sure.

Are soldiers out there dying for me? I think they think they are. The one thing about that slogan that pisses me off is that people use it as if I should be on the floor grovelling to these soldiers for going to Iraq (willingly, unwillingly, whatever). Fact of the matter is that they are soldiers, and fighting in wars is part of their job. I don't grovel to the mailman for delivering my letters because that's his job. In the case of most soldiers today, that is a job they CHOSE to do. That slogan today is used to emotionally end debates on the soldiers sacrafice in Iraq. It attempts to make people feel bad for having negative views; the way calling someone a racist is often used to stymie potential debates about race relations.

I thank the soldiers for having the gumption to go over and risk their lives, but it is a cauldron that I think people are unnecessarily throwing themselves into.

War doesn't fall into any objective moral realm. It's not a morally justifiable action, but it is not an unnecessary one in the course of human events. As William Tecumsah Sherman said: War is Hell.