Open Discussion > The Wallth Are Thoundproof
Favorite Quotes
CaptBewil:
Right before mid-term elections here in the states's:
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
Caenus:
While true, there are those who DO spout very hateful things at soldiers for simply doing their jobs. It's like religion, pacifism is great, but don't condemn the man who relies on violence of action.
Great quote though.
CaptBewil:
I just thought it was ironic because the Bush Administration used the 9/11 attacks to rally the people to their own will and then denounced the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger. It's actually sad because they took the rational of a Nazi to achieve their goals. How twisted is that?
The soldier issue I'm torn on. Soldiers can lay down their arms and walk away at anytime. HOWEVER, the government makes this difficult for several reasons:
1. To a large degree they brainwash and censor the information the soldiers receive.
2. They charge the soldiers with a military crime if they walk off the battlefield. What's terribly wrong with this is that the military tribunal does not take into account rather the war is popular or not NOR that soldiers own moral or ethical reasons for laying down his/her arms.
What ends up happening is that the ones who do not feel they are rightfully serving the will of the people with their actions, wait until their contract runs out to leave. Of course, since this has become a common occurrence, the government has restricted their ability to do so by extending their contracts (regardless of the legality and taking advantage of the soldiers ignorance of law). So there's a lot at play here that complicates the issue. However, it is never okay to 'spout very hateful things at soldiers' for any reason. The people that do so should use pamphlets to inform the soldiers. On the otherside of the arguement, though, the ussual rational of those that 'spout very hateful things at solderis' is to strongly reinforce the unpopularity with the war in the hopes that they'll say "enough is enough, this isn't worth the unpopularity I face at home, I'm laying down my weapon and facing my (nobel) consequences like a man." Not to say I agree with it...I'm just saying...
Morgul:
--- Quote from: CaptBewil on November 04, 2006, 12:02:50 pm ---[...]The soldier issue I'm torn on. Soldiers can lay down their arms and walk away at anytime.
--- End quote ---
Well, yes and no. They CAN lay down their arms in the middle of a fire fight, but they WILL get shot. (Possibly by other soldiers who see this as dereliction of duty.) Which is nobler, laying down your life for your beliefs, or fighting for them? IMHO, they are equal, but some view death as a coward's way out.
--- Quote --- HOWEVER, the government makes this difficult for several reasons:
1. To a large degree they brainwash and censor the information the soldiers receive.
--- End quote ---
While true, ask any soldier in Iraq currently if they think we should be there. Most will say no. That tells me that they're free thinking enough, and bright enough to develop their own conclusions and opinions based on their experience.
--- Quote ---2. They charge the soldiers with a military crime if they walk off the battlefield. What's terribly wrong with this is that the military tribunal does not take into account rather the war is popular or not NOR that soldiers own moral or ethical reasons for laying down his/her arms.
--- End quote ---
Very true. There are reasons for charging them with a crime, and honestly those reason are sound, and I wouldn't wish it differently, but that doesn't make it 'good'. And just imagine the tribunal's task... if they let Soldier A get away with walking off the battlefield, then how can they charge Soldier B who goes AWOL, getting his entire squad killed? What moral ground do they have to stand on? Tough call, imho.
--- Quote ---What ends up happening is that the ones who do not feel they are rightfully serving the will of the people with their actions, wait until their contract runs out to leave. Of course, since this has become a common occurrence, the government has restricted their ability to do so by extending their contracts (regardless of the legality and taking advantage of the soldiers ignorance of law). So there's a lot at play here that complicates the issue. However, it is never okay to 'spout very hateful things at soldiers' for any reason. The people that do so should use pamphlets to inform the soldiers. On the otherside of the arguement, though, the ussual rational of those that 'spout very hateful things at solderis' is to strongly reinforce the unpopularity with the war in the hopes that they'll say "enough is enough, this isn't worth the unpopularity I face at home, I'm laying down my weapon and facing my (nobel) consequences like a man." Not to say I agree with it...I'm just saying...
--- End quote ---
To me, risking your life for any cause, including immoral ones still retains a level of nobility. Now, when it comes to doing a the job of a soldier, on both sides I feel those who fight and die are a higher caliber of humanity then most. They may not be good men, they may not even be decent men; they are men willing to die because they are told to. That takes a special (if not disturbing) mentality, and most of the people I've met who've faced that have been better because of it. They might still not be good or just men, but they're more good, more just then if they'd never had to face death like that. That alone is why I think all soldiers should be treated with honor and respect.
As a side note, I'm also one who says a prayer for our enemy's safety as well as our own soldiers. If the Bush administration wants to call that unAmerican, then I think someone needs to sit down with the constitution, and brush up on his facts.
CaptBewil:
--- Quote from: morgul on November 04, 2006, 04:42:42 pm ---Well, yes and no. They CAN lay down their arms in the middle of a fire fight, but they WILL get shot. (Possibly by other soldiers who see this as dereliction of duty.) Which is nobler, laying down your life for your beliefs, or fighting for them? IMHO, they are equal, but some view death as a coward's way out.
--- End quote ---
I mostly meant figuratively. Anyone who did 'lay down their arms' (I think there's only been a handfull to do so thus far (mostly Officers)) would do so during 'down time'. But I agree with what you said. On a side note, though, where does Dereliction of Duty and Service to Country (or to it's will) begin and end when they conflict with each other? I suppose that would be an arguement saved for during a Tribunal. At any rate, the risk of being shot for Dereliction of Duty would also count as another reason for how the government (indirectly) makes it a difficult choice.
--- Quote ---While true, ask any soldier in Iraq currently if they think we should be there. Most will say no. That tells me that they're free thinking enough, and bright enough to develop their own conclusions and opinions based on their experience.
--- End quote ---
Interestingly enough, another forum I belong to has a couple of regular members who are currently serving in Iraq and whom firmly believe and are committed to the Bush Administrations agenda. Many people here even still believe we should remain 'until the job is done'. Granted, that is changing now that CNN and others have stopped letting the government intimidate them in the last year and a half. The government has many fronts in it's propaganda machine, which is what makes it so difficult to stop. Again, I do agree with you on that, along with the US general population, soldiers serving in Iraq have started changing their opinion. Most of them will likely wait out for their contract to expire versus going AWOL.
(It was the same way in the Vietnam War)
--- Quote ---Very true. There are reasons for charging them with a crime, and honestly those reason are sound, and I wouldn't wish it differently, but that doesn't make it 'good'. And just imagine the tribunal's task... if they let Soldier A get away with walking off the battlefield, then how can they charge Soldier B who goes AWOL, getting his entire squad killed? What moral ground do they have to stand on? Tough call, imho.
--- End quote ---
Again, I agree.
--- Quote ---To me, risking your life for any cause, including immoral ones still retains a level of nobility. Now, when it comes to doing a the job of a soldier, on both sides I feel those who fight and die are a higher caliber of humanity then most. They may not be good men, they may not even be decent men; they are men willing to die because they are told to. That takes a special (if not disturbing) mentality, and most of the people I've met who've faced that have been better because of it. They might still not be good or just men, but they're more good, more just then if they'd never had to face death like that. That alone is why I think all soldiers should be treated with honor and respect.
--- End quote ---
To a certain extent I would agree for which it applies. There have been, however, numerous cases where the psycological trauma remains with them for their entire life. This has (in some cases) turned good men bad, becoming members of the criminal population within 5 years after their return. In other cases, such as for the majority of Marines (even if by a slim majority) are so brainwashed during 'boot camp' they are changed psycologically from the beginning (more so then other branches). My brother, for instance, only saw a small amount of action during his 5 years (2 years spent stationed in Somalia). Yet, he is far more arrogant, conceded, and tempromental then he ever was prior to entering service. It may be sad, but as far as I'm concerned, the brother I admired and looked up to as a kid, died the day he stepped on that bus destined for Parris Island.
No doubt, all in all, it's a complex issue. There are so many varibles and statistics to consider and it's very difficult to try and not make 'sweeping generalizations' and still address the real issues; all while acknowledging your respect for soldier's choices (or situation they were forced into).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version