"The Static Drinking Game" - or - "Why Should I Support the Military?"
POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Friday, March 19, 2004 20:30
VIEWED: 24289
PAGE 4 of 11
Quote:
Originally posted by Adeptus:Quote:Except for the fact that we have an all-volunteer military. There's no draft or required service. Every man and woman in our armed forces is serving by their own choice, knowing full well the sole and exact purpose the military fulfills. And I, for one, applaud each and every one of them.
The soldier does not have that option
I believe the pipefitter analogy is valid.
No power in the 'verse can stop me.
You're right, there is no draft or required service, but you volunteer to served based on the belief that your country will put you to work in situations that are Right (with a capital R) and Justified- But getting out of the military is NOT volunteer- You ink a contract that says you will serve x period of time, not one that says 'if you think this place deserves attacked you can go here, if not stay home'-
The 'pipefitter' can say, "I dont like this job, I cant handle it, I quit" and no one gets killed (just a little basement flooding)- The soldier says "I dont like this job, I cant handle it," and the superior says, "too bad boy, you got 3 more years"- And should the soldier get out by some means, his skills that might have saved someone might be what gets someone killed-
And it's not that I cant see the 'pipefitter' as a metaphor (I understand your point, really), it's also that I just dont like that metaphor personally- I dont like trivial things compared to death, that's all- It's like when a buddy of mine always says (and please lets not get into this one, just using an example) 'Bush lied about WMD, but Clinton lied about sex' - I HATE that, they are both lies and liars, sure, but one lie doesnt create BODIES-
------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well. You certainly had a great deal to say. And you said it eloquently as usual. I may not agree with it all, but as always I respect your right to your opinion. What the hell is the First Amendment for, anyway?
Speaking of that...
First - if you're going to talk about September 11, talk about September 11. 911 is the emergency hotline to the police. 911 is not, nor has it ever been the day I watched two giant buildings on American soil disintegrate over and over and over again on national TV. 911 is not the day I was glued to the NASDAQ Web site, watching as their stock market research editors - my peers at the time - post SCREAMING headlines about what was happening right down the street, and Washington D.C.
Second. Have you ever seen what happens to a civilian war survivor during a thunderstorm? My best friend was 13 years old when the civil war between Christian-controlled East Beirut and the Muslim faction in West Beirut started in 1975. That city is still in the midst of reconstruction, and she's only been able to go home to visit family twice since I've known her - twice in 16 years. I won't go into the politics or logistics of all of that - frankly, that part didn't touch me so much as seeing a grown woman jump out of her skin because a clap of thunder overhead happens to make the same sound that bombs did when she heard them coming down outside the apartment she grew up in. She's told me about how four of the five members of her family would lean in to light their cigarettes from the same trembling candle during those bombings.
The American Embassy in Beirut was bombed April 18, 1983. The American Marine military barracks in Beirut was bombed later that same year, October 23, 1983. And there has been more acts of terror against the U.S. at our posts in other parts of the world both before and since. We should have been doing something about terrorism long before September 11, and as horrible as it was, I'm afraid it was only a matter of time before someone found a way to bring the terror HOME.
Do I support war? No. War should be the absolute, final resort to any situation, avoided at all costs. I hate that my friend had to experience the horrors of it. I also hate that now, because of the War against Terror, she gets suspicious looks. She's Armenian, but she looks Middle-Eastern, hence the unwarranted looks. It's even worse for her brother, who lives in Tulsa, Oklahoma now. He was sent out of Beirut as a teenager in order to keep from being "recruited" to fight.
Do I support the troops? YES. Why? Is it because of Static and how I'd like to see his wedding pictures sometime in the near future? You betcha. Is it because during World War II and Korea my father served in the U.S. Navy? Actually, I think about that every time I stand up with him as he salutes the flag during Memorial Day services. Not supporting the troops would be disrespecting them, which would lead me to disrespect him.
The other huge part of it is this. My best friend's son was born in Doha, Qatar, April 13, 1986, 11 years to the day that the civil war began in Beirut. I've known him since he was 2, watched him grow up, made him the subject of one of my best pieces of artwork. He'll be 18 this year, and this June he will be joining the Marines.
Now ask me why I support the troops. I'll take my two shots of Cuervo now, please.
Nora
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But it was the individual's choice to put themselves into this position. You can't enter the military without expecting to be directly involved in combat, or indirectly supporting it in some way. The job of the military is to fight wars, and in so doing, kill lots of people. Everyone who is an employee of the Department of Defense is either directly, or indirectly involved in killing people because the core of our military are the Combat Arms divisions. All other divisions and jobs only exist to support the core.
They take orders, not give them . . .
I also think you guys have missed the analogy that was used. No one is comparing pipefitting to killing, that would be ridiculous. Perhaps Drakon's comparison was too specific. What if we said that a person has Profession X, and you meet this person and say, "I think you're a really great fellow, but I think your profession is straight up evil and I hate it." You'd be pretty lucky if you didn't come away with a bloody nose and a black eye. Even if you were just commenting about one particular job (within the profession) that this person was doing sure wouldn't do a whole lot for their morale.
You see, you can't say that the job is evil, but that the person is good because good people don't make a profession out of doing evil things. Good people do good jobs, like being a policeman, fireman or soldier, and evil people do evil jobs like being a thief, arsonist or sadistic, murderous dictator.
So if you denigrate our troops' mission, you're only tearing down their morale. If you denigrate their profession, you're denigrating them. If you really feel that deposing a man like Saddam is evil (I can't for the life of me figure that one out), you could at least wait until the troops got home before you started casting aspersions.
No power in the 'verse can stop me.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm really going to try and not write a dissertation here....
I do not believe that we should have gone into Iraq. It was a cynical, political (as in domestic. As in approval rating. As in election.), economic (as in Oil) move, which was reviled by the majority of the 'civilized' world. The fact that it has beneficial spin-offs (like removing the mad despot, Saddam from power; like presenting a strong front to potentially threatening nations; like potentially [though by no means certainly!] reducing the degree to which we are beholden to the Saudis, and thus strengthening our hand in negotiations [etc.] with them) must be seen as secondary to the decidedly NON-righteous reasons for going in.
I DO believe we should be in Afghanistan. The toppling of a dangerously fanatical, aggressive regime which DIRECTLY aided and abetted those who did us serious harm was imperative. Further, sticking around to finish the job, and support that nation's efforts to establish a more adaptive form of self-governance is the right thing to do. Indeed, it is a legitimate expression of a policy which, had it been implemented before, might have nipped much of the terroristic campaigns against the US in the bud. By contrast, previous policies of going in and aiding that group, blasting the other group, then bugging out when the immediate aims had been accomplished arguably sowed the seeds which came to abominable bloom on a certain Tuesday morning in 2001.
None of this is a Soldier's (or Marine's or Seaman's, or Airman's) sphere of influence. The ancient Hindu text [actually, pre-Hindu...but that's another conversation) the Bagavad-Gita depicts the warrior king, Arjuna, poised on the brink of a huge battle, agonizing about the implications of what he is about to do. At that moment, his charioteer (the god, Krishna in disguise, as it happens), freezes time and walks him through the Very Big Picture...I won't get into that picture (see earlier "not a dissertation" comment [has that ship already sailed?] ). The upshot (pardon the pun) is that a warrior's proper duty is to do what he is doing, fully, authentically, humbly, and skillfully, to embody the duty/path (dharma) which he is positioned to implement. His duty is to carry out his mission with 100% of his being, to hold nothing in reserve...not only because that tends to get one dead, but because the surrendering of Self (all the niggling little second thoughts and ego trips) to the task at hand is the highest expression of being. It is, in fact, central to Joseph Campbell's definition of a Hero. A warror's path is to put all that he (pardon sexism of generic pronoun) is into what he does...however horrific a moment's reflection would reveal that thing to be.
It is up to the leaders who send warriors into battle (and the people who [supposedly] elect them) to choose righteous missions. For warriors to arrogate to themselves the task of making policy is a sure path to chaos, weakness, dishonor, and, ultimately defeat.
That said, a warrior still has choice. If one's CO commands one to burn a village of non-combatants, then a warror/hero can choose to surrender Self to the task of refusing the order (upon pain of death, imprisonment, and pariah status if not later vindicated). A moment's hesitation in such a situation would leave one open to being convinced (moral defeat), in much the same way that hesitation in battle leaves one open to being mowed down by the enemy. IMHO, the British officer who refused Wesley Clarke's (ill-considered, ego-driven) order to block Russian planes from touching down in Cosovo (and thus potentially triggering hostilities with Russia!) acted heroically. Similarly, when John Kerry was stationed in Viet Nam, he carried out his duty. It was after he came home that he spoke out against the war. Heroic.
In this vein, I think that STATIC and all his compatriots amply derserve our full, unalloyed, unapologetic support...whatever we may think of the policies which place them on the battlefield. For them to approach their gr
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Dear Tash,
I don't know where to start, so I guess I'll start with what comes to mind first. I understand what your saying, and I've had some of the very same thoughts you have. I personally deplore war and all it stands for. I hate the thought of killing people merely because of a clash of beliefs. What can I say, I'm a humanitarian, and from what it sounds like your are too. Isn't that why most people don't like war/killing? As a humanitarian, one needs to care about all people, including soldiers. As a humanitarian myself, I want to see Static come home safe and sound, and that includes mentally sound. If quoting Firefly as he does his soldier activities helps him keep his sanity, than quote away. Heck, about killing there even Mal's quote, "If someone tries to kill you, you try and kill 'em right back" that's hard not to think about it's literal meaning. So I say, support our troops because they are people too. You talk about them choosing not to fight and many have. The numbers of soldiers who have commited suicide while on duty in Iraq is staggering. The number of soldiers who have gone AWOL while on R&R is also staggering. Even though "breaking down a solder to rebuild him" is a neccessary part of the job, many still have a brain when they're done with basic training (if they started with one), and they are ALL still people. You say military people freak you out, I think that's just your own personal stereotypes getting in the way of your perceptions. Have you ever been assaulted by a military person? How about a non- military person? Has a military person ever threaten you? How about a non-military person. My point is, many people kill without ever going into the military, and not everyone who goes into the military will kill somebody. As far as hooping and hollering about the "joy of killing", I guarantee that deep down, they don't want to, and they nobody certainly wants to just for the mere act of it. The problem is, they don't have time to think about it that way, they have a job to do, and thinking too much is just going to put thier life and the lives of their fellow soldiers in jeopardy. When they get home, they'll have plenty of time to think about it then, and that's when we need to support them the most. That's one (of the many) reasons I deplore pres. Bush so much, he doesn't seem to care about the troops that do come home physically safe. As I understand it, he's cut program funding for returning vets, and that's wrong. In the end, if you don't like war, get out there and VOTE in November, get your friends/coworkers and family to vote too. That's about the end of my little diatribe. Hopefully you haven't scared Static off because I happen to think he's a great guy and diserves his fair share (maybe more) of respect, both as a soldier and a Browncoat.
-The SpAz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
G:
I *completely* agree! Being in battle is not about you. If you start thinking about you and the situation you are in, you falter, you hesitate , and next thing you know, not only will you be wearing a bodybag, but so will a couple of your buddies next to you. Fighting a war isn't about you, your loved ones at home, the mission, or the ideals behind it; when you are waist high in muck and crap is exploding all around you, it's all about the guy next to you. It's all about your buddies - it's duty and honor to your group. It's about getting your ass and your buddies' asses out of this one and maybe making it thru the next one too.
Like Noocyte said, being a soldier is not about being psychopathic killing of human beings, it's about putting everything that you are, your training and your craft, into what you are doing. Everything that the military teaches you is about keeping yourself alive - yeah, part of it involves killing or disabling people who are trying to get your ass dead. A fine drill-sergeant once said "You are *not* here to give your lives for your country. You *are* here to make sure that your opponent has every chance he has to do it for his."
Staying alive.
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
If their use of Firefly quotes contributes one little bit to bringing Static and his comrades home safe, I'm for it.
I know that the little catchphrases my unit in Vietnam shared brought us closer. They allowed us to express our mutual concern without getting all gushy about it. During rocket attacks or infiltration alerts, thinking about "us" instead of "me" kept us all safer.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Except that the whole process was started two full years before the election, and only a little over a year after the worst attack on our soil since December 7th, 1941. If it were just a political machination, they would likely have waited until Election Day was more than just a gleam in the electorate's eye.
It was a cynical, political (as in domestic. As in approval rating. As in election.)
Quote:You don't see freeing an entire nation from the insane grip of a murderous, sadistic tyrant as righteous enough in and of itself? Also, we have made definite gains in our "negotiations" with N. Korea and Iran over their possession of nuclear weapons. We may be operating a little bit differently from the way we used to do things, but that does not imply that our methods now are necessarily wrong, nor that our methods before were necessarily right.
The fact that it has beneficial spin-offs (like removing the mad despot, Saddam from power; like presenting a strong front to potentially threatening nations; like potentially [though by no means certainly!] reducing the degree to which we are beholden to the Saudis, and thus strengthening our hand in negotiations [etc.] with them) must be seen as secondary to the decidedly NON-righteous reasons for going in.
The times, they are a-changin'.
No power in the 'verse can stop me.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Noocyte:
I loathe the current administration with every fiber of my being. I cringe at the thought of snuffing out a human consciousness. I am proud to bursting of STATIC and his compatriots.
Thank you for summing up my feelings no neatly. I come from a line of warriors that have served this country since before it declared independence.
I served 10 years. Between us, my brothers and sisters served 40+ years. My little sister is medically retired from the Army after a horrific injury that had her erroneously reported as dead -- the two year battle to get that corrected at Ft. Knox is another story.
I remember the bombing in Beirut. I was stationed three miles from RAF Mildenhall (home of the 2nd largest military mortuary in Europe).
The Marines who were escorting their blood brothers all the way home to turn them over to the care of relatives for burial were there too.
There was nothing we could do cure the pain behind their eyes so, we did what we could. It wasn't much. We ensured that every Marine had someone to dance with. Imagine dancing a slow dance with a man who is trembling like a kitten in a snowstorm. Imagine running your hair along his cheek to wipe away the tears, the whole time pretending that this big Marine isn't crying like a baby.
Do NOT think that I do not fully support, defend and trust our military. They deserve our fullest support.
Do NOT think that I don't despise Dubya and his whole rat's nest of lying zealots. I see them cutting medical support to veterans. I see them reducing pensions. I have YET to see the President at a military funeral.
I am furious that the Disabled Veterans of America are not being given full access to the wounded in hospitals when they need compassion, understanding and information the most. Dubya hasn't answered their letter of inquiry.
I want nothing more than to see George Bush and the Cabal that started this mess up on war crimes charges.
Our administration sucks. I have no doubt that my vocal opposition to their war will get me on a 'no fly list'. A list that is so secret, you cannot find out who put you on it and there's no way to get off.
I love my military. I want them home. Safe. Secure. Sound. Whatever they have to do to accomplish that, I'll be behind them.
What makes me cry is the knowledge that at RAF Mildenhall, someone is dancing with a man or woman who is trembling like a kitten in a blizzard.
"Just keep walkin, preacher man."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I actually have to dash soon, so pardon if I don't follow up on this quick reply for a while...
Quote:
It was a cynical, political (as in domestic. As in approval rating. As in election.)
Except that the whole process was started two full years before the election, and only a little over a year after the worst attack on our soil since December 7th, 1941. If it were just a political machination, they would likely have waited until Election Day was more than just a gleam in the electorate's eye.
The fact that this 'process' was begun so far ahead of time does not contradict my point. The opposite, actually, in that it suggests that the notion of going into Iraq was a foregone conclusioin before there was a substantive link between Al Quaeda and the Baathist regime (not that there really is one now, mind you).
And, don't underestimate how far in advance an administration will start thinking about gathering political capital for an election (not to mention that congressional elections were in the much more near term at the time).
Quote:
You don't see freeing an entire nation from the insane grip of a murderous, sadistic tyrant as righteous?
As I'd said, I see that as a felicitous spin-off from the much shadier central goals of the campaign. If I inadvertently save lives in the course of committing an immoral act, this does not make the act any less immoral. I'm pleased as punch that Saddam is history! But conducting foreign policy as the current administration has done, IMHO, only increases the chance of history repeating itself!
Quote:
Also, we have made definite gains in our "negotiations" with N. Korea and Iran over their possession of nuclear weapons.
Iran is an open question, as some change has been brewing there for some time. But I have insufficient data to render a judgment on any connection between our war in Iraq and the goings-on there.
As for N. Korea, there is much to suggest that the whole "lookie here! I've got nukes!" thing was a strategem to bring other nations to the table on quesions of aid and trade, having nothing to do with our Iraq war. Not to mention that the way we toppled the government/military in Iraq is in no way comparable to the world of hurt we'd be getting into if we endeavored to take on the N. Korean military!
Quote:
We may be operating a little bit differently from the way we used to do things, but that does not imply that our methods now are necessarily wrong, nor that our methods before were necessarily right.
It remains to be seen how differently we are operating (one of the chief questions being one of follow-through, for which the jury is still out...though Afghanistan is a glimmer of hope there). An important point is that the degree to which the current administratiion acts to alienate the rest of the world in its actions is an ominous sign for starving the roots of anti-Americanism, and so avertig the need for a War On terror.
Sorry, gotta flee. Glad we're keeping this civil; I make it a policy NEVER to get in on political threads on the OB; I don't do ad hominem
Keep flyin'!
Department of Redundancy Department
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Adeptus:
you've got my full agreement on that one. The military is an instrument of our country's political process. How it is used exactly has changed over the years, but basically it is an extension of diplomacy. No matter how mad we think or see the administration in how we use our military, we need to keep reminding ourselves that what you see is about 10% of the story. Our country and many good working men and women negotiate, discuss, implore others to act kindly (yeah, certainly in many instances, it's with a certain self interest) to their people, different people/rulers respond differently to different words. If kind words and other economic motivations don't work, then it might degenerate into the threat of force; and sometimes you actually have to use it. In the end, these are all tools that anyone has before them. If it's not a tool that you would employ in your everyday life, that's fine too - not many people do. But realize that that's what state craft is. It's not about, "you do this or I'll bust your nose in". Many Many other avenues have already been explored (that you prolly don't and will never hear about) before the use or show of force.
Moving troops and stationing troops are very very expensive and it takes a long time to move an Army around - all of the logistics can take 6 to 9 months. It's not an easy thing to do and you bet that it's not done on the drop of a hat.
Quote:
Originally posted by Adeptus:Quote:Except that the whole process was started two full years before the election, and only a little over a year after the worst attack on our soil since December 7th, 1941. If it were just a political machination, they would likely have waited until Election Day was more than just a gleam in the electorate's eye.
It was a cynical, political (as in domestic. As in approval rating. As in election.)Quote:You don't see freeing an entire nation from the insane grip of a murderous, sadistic tyrant as righteous enough in and of itself? Also, we have made definite gains in our "negotiations" with N. Korea and Iran over their possession of nuclear weapons. We may be operating a little bit differently from the way we used to do things, but that does not imply that our methods now are necessarily wrong, nor that our methods before were necessarily right.
The fact that it has beneficial spin-offs (like removing the mad despot, Saddam from power; like presenting a strong front to potentially threatening nations; like potentially [though by no means certainly!] reducing the degree to which we are beholden to the Saudis, and thus strengthening our hand in negotiations [etc.] with them) must be seen as secondary to the decidedly NON-righteous reasons for going in.
The times, they are a-changin'.
No power in the 'verse can stop me.
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME