Talk Story

"The Static Drinking Game" - or - "Why Should I Support the Military?"

POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Friday, March 19, 2004 20:30
VIEWED: 24289
PAGE 6 of 11

DRAKON

Saturday, February 14, 2004 9:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
The 'pipefitter' metaphor is BS- He is doing the job, he makes the decisions, HE can quit- So if pipefitting is bad, he might just be making the wrong life choice- The soldier does not have that option (he cant just go 'I think this is a bad job' and quit), therefore, you can support him (the soldier) and not the job- I've done a lot of jobs I didnt like, but I always did them 100%, and it's the same with them- I dont like what they are doing, but I expect 100% out of them regardless till it's time for them to come home- I have friends in Iraq, they know I want them home safe and want them to do whatever they have to do to get the job done and stay safe- But they also know that I think the decision to invade was a bad call, so I write letters and speak out- It might sound like a contradiction, but, hey, as we say around here, 'some people juggle geese'-

The US military is all voluntary. And whether it is killing, or pipefitting, it is still the action that provides the identity of the individual. If you object to killing, you are objecting the the concept of soldiering in the first place. Regardless of which side you think is right or wrong.

Also, "I vas just following orders" does not cut it as a defense, nor is that how the US military looks at or deals with these issues. You are still morally responsible for your actions, regardless of who told you to do it. You are also, since at least Nuremburg legally responsible for your actions as the "I was just following orders" idea is not a valid defense. It excuses nothing.

Granted, humans are more than their jobs, and what they do. But still, if your soldiers are over there in a fight, even if it is one that you disagree with, making them doubt their mission is not condusive to getting them back home safely. They need assurance that they are doing the right thing. (Which I think they are.) They do not need the doubts we raise over hear to influence their ability to protect themselves and their fellow soldiers.

BTW: It was no attempt at being cute. I am too ugly and old to ever be mistaken for cute.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

DRAKON

Saturday, February 14, 2004 10:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
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-

First off, the analogy is valid as both are chosen actions. Deciding to be a pipefitter, or being a soldier, are identities created or adopted by choice. Granted, the choice has different consequences both to yourself and to others. You may not like that, but again, one of the points I have been talking about is the 'verse is what it is. Whether you like it or not, it don't give a damn.

Second: The whole Bush lied thing. If you can find one major politician anywhere who said that Saddam did not have WMDs, or anyone in the know, prior to the invasion and war, point him out. Bush is not the only one saying that he had them. MI6, French, German, Russian and Chinese intel, even Hans Blix, all said the same thing. So did Clinton. Everyone thought he did have them, and it appears that even Saddam himself was under the false impression that he had them. There was a network of distrust and lies going on, but not in the US or British administrations. It was in Iraq the whole time, and the fact that it fooled everyone else, well, that is regrettable.

Besides which, you really need to read all of Kay's testimony. Saddam did have ongoing prohibited weapons programs. He had the factories for some pretty nasty stuff, and in Kay's words, was "probably more dangerous" than we thought.

Third: I support what our troops are doing over in Iraq, and in Afghanistan for purely selfish reasons. I don't want another 9-11, or something worse to occur here ever again. But I am not blind to the benefit the removal of Saddam has had on the Iraqi people themselves. No more mass graves, no more plastics shredders, no more "special arraignments" with jr. high school principles to send their female students to Udays house after hours. Removing Saddam was right, not just for my own petty selfish interests of not getting attacked, but to the Iraqi people as well.

The only way for evil to prosper, is for good people to sit back and do nothing. We did (almost) nothing for 12 years, and a lot of evil occured in Iraq in that time. Now that is over, and what the future brings is anyone's guess. What ain't a guess is the past is over and done with, and soon it will be dead along with Saddam. How this is NOT a good thing, well, somebody will have to explain it to me.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

DRAKON

Saturday, February 14, 2004 10:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Noocyte:
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.

Arguing on intentions is a very tricky thing to do. And ultimately kinda pointless. I disagree totally with your characterization of the reasons for going after Saddam, but lets say you are right. That this was done for all the wrong reasons.

Does it matter? Especially does it matter to the Iraqi people themselves?

What matters is the consequences of your actions, not why you did it, or more importantly, why anyone else thinks you did it. Intentions are one of those mental things that you keep locked in your skull and nobody can access without your involvement. I can tell you what my reasons were for supporting the war, but you have no way of verifying, or refuting, what I tell you. You can, decide (for no reason whatsoever) that I am lying to you, and there is no way I can invite you in my skull to show you that my intentions are not dishonorable or "wrong" as you see it.

Its very easy to call another's explaination of their reasoning a lie, and come up with all sorts of ulterior motives. Its a great tactic, as it is outsides the bounds of objective proof. The opponent can't refute it, but then you cannot prove what was in his mind all the time.

And ultimately, its a waste of effort. What matters is not what you intend to happen, but what actually happens. Does the actions look as if it will achieve the stated goals? (i.e. reduce the threat to the US from foreign terrorists, by liberating Iraq from its tyrant and showing Muslims that they are not just some "wogs", but are as deserving of the benefits of democracy and competent at working within such, as anyone else.)

All the good intentions in the world ain't going to fix anything. Its actions. And its not just any ole action will do, but one that actually accomplishes the intention. Or else, the liberal left would have solved all the inner city problems years ago, with all their various programs and good intentions.

Quote:
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.

Then you get into charges of US imperialism and the like, lack of support, and too many folks complaining about how we should not be imposing our values on the Afghanis. Many of these arguments have been trotted out by folks who are in complete agreement with you. And that leaves things confused. Do we removes murderous tyrants or let them kill their own people. Do we establish democracy in these countries or let them establish the kind of government they see fit?

Quote:

In this vein, I think that STATIC and all his compatriots amply derserve our full, unalloyed, unapologetic support...whatever we may think of the po

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

BEATLE

Saturday, February 14, 2004 10:39 AM

Although this did turn in to a political debate, It has still been kept very civil which has been a pleasure to read.
However there are three things never to discuss on a web board: politics, religion, and sports. These are things that you can not ever change in the minds of others. It's all about opinions. And like a friend of mine said "Opinions are like cowboy hats. Everyone who wears one is an ass*ole."
Well we have them and that's what makes us the person we are. Thanks for sharing, it's given me much thought.
http://www.scottrchambers.com/rcpm/godgavemeagun.WMA I think it's fits.

DRAKON

Saturday, February 14, 2004 10:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Werespaz:
Hmm. I don't remember attacking Saudi Arabia, as 15 of the 19 highjackers were from there.

Saudi Arabia is kind of a weird case. There is evidence that the royal family is split, some taking a more western friendly view, and some not so much. There are deep problems in the kingdom right now, which is part of the reason for all this mess we are in now.

The real "root cause" of terrorism is not what the US did or did not do. Ultimately it does not matter, because no matter what we do, one side or the other will not like it, and blame us for their inability to take control of the government.

The root cause is despotism and tyranny. Saudi Arabia has developed a knack for channeling all that rage felt by its people (and due to its own incompetence,) outward. Its the Jews fault, its the Americans fault. If we can only get the US out of Saudi Arabia, we can take control, etc.

Well, we're out of the kingdom now. And Saudi Arabia is being attacked. Not by us, but by those same jihadis who until recently had focused their anger toward the US. There have been several bombings in and around Riadyh in the past year. But we ain't the ones doing it.

Some have called this present war the Saudi Civil War, and remarked that it was unique in being the first civil war fought almost exclusively outside the borders of the nation. You are seeing that change even now.

Quote:
Spent too much time doing what? There were U.N. inspectors all over Iraq, and when they weren't getting delayed by misleading or wrong U.S. intelligence they weren't finding anything. Why? Because as we're finding out now, Iraq didn't have anything. If the inspectors would've had 6 months to a year of time, they would've reached the same conclusions as we are arriving at now, without the loss of several hundred U.S. service men and woman and the countless loss of Iraqi lives.

This is not quite accurate. The inspectors were finding that Saddam was keeping programs active, was not destroying his weapons as prescribed in the cease fire. The documents they were getting from the Iraqis themselves kept showing they were hiding something, again in violation of the cease fire and the UN resolutions. This is why despite Hans Blix hatred for the US's present administration, he never gave Saddam a clean bill of health on this one issue.

Also it should be pointed out that fewer Iraqi civilians were killed during the war, as well as afterwards, than Saddam was killing. More Iraqi civilians would be dead today, if Saddam were still in power.

Quote:

Who? Us, Brittain and about a thousand troops from Australia? That's many?

First off, we're in a catch 22 area. If the US goes in alone, its being unilateral. If it gets support from nations like Great Britian, Australia, Poland, Spain, Japan, etc. etc. This does not constitute a 'real colition'

Militarily, we don't need anyone else's help. Right now, I think only Great Britain and the US have even similar military capabilities, and even GB is far behind us. So, if a colilition is not needed militarily, why is it needed at all?

Politics. But its set up as a rigged gamed. It doesn't count as a real colilition unless France is part of it, despite inability (and even unwillingness as seen in Afghanistan) to be part of it.

Quote:

All other political motivations aside, I think if Bush was a patient man, he would've waited until the U.N. Inspectors came back from Iraq either saying A)"Saddam is not cooperating" or B)"We have some evidence that he is desparately trying to reconstitute his WMD program and at some time in the future could have some." Nothing like that was being said about the inspections.

Actually what was being said was Saddam was NOT cooperating. That is what Blix said on his last trip there.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

DRAKON

Saturday, February 14, 2004 11:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by LtNOWIS:
Am I the only one who thinks it's a good, moral thing to kill evildoers, even if they're not attacking you personally?

Nope not alone one bit. I will go further, (proving how much a lower life than you I am) and say you don't wait till he pulls the trigger or hits you first. If you are sure that he is going to hit you, kill him first, before he kills you.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

SUCCATASH

Monday, February 16, 2004 3:13 AM

Static,

I'd like to apologize, I did you wrong. You don't deserve receiving the brunt of my frustration over the current state of the world. To quote my ex-girlfriend, "It's not you, it's me."

I've learned a lot as I read these posts and the issues are so complex, I need more time before I can properly respond to everything.

But at this point, I want to say I'm sorry, and I feel bad for kicking your sand castle. Don't change, don't stop posting. Keep it up, you are a great Browncoat. I owe you a beer.

As for Drakon, I'm really mad at you! I lay awake at night thinking, "If it's necessary, than it can't be Evil?" Yeah, tell that to my priest.

Damn. I need to think about everything some more.

ROCKETJOCK

Saturday, February 21, 2004 7:06 AM

Brass tacks time.

1. There is a universe of difference between supporting a war, and supporting your warriors. It's the difference between steering the car and maintaining the engine. Whatever I think about the gene-damaged turkeys at the wheel right now, our armed forces are the best Hemi money can buy, Thor bless 'em all.

2. I am not responsible for Bush & Co.'s* foreign adventures; I did not vote for them; even if I had, voting itself is what renews your "right to bitch" license; I'd still be free to bust their chops, even if I was registered Republican. That's what representative democracy is all about.

3. Can we please get over the image of hippies in airports spitting on returning Viet Nam vets? Yes, I know the country spit (spat?) on them, metaphorically speaking, but I've never spoken to anyone who actually witnessed some long-haired-hippie-type-pinko-fag(tm)physically expectorating on someone fresh off the last plane from Saigon. And if a LHHTPF was unwise enough to do so, I expect he'd be eating airport carpet muy rapido, and I doubt SFO security would have done much about it.

*Footquote: "Of course the war's going to hell. Our leadership consists of a bush, a dick, and a colon." -- Don Bleu

RocketJock

NOOCYTE

Saturday, February 21, 2004 7:53 AM

Quote:

*Footquote: "Of course the war's going to hell. Our leadership consists of a bush, a dick, and a colon." -- Don Bleu

Ah, jeez. Not only did I just chortle (yes, chortle), but I actually snorted. Thus have a just received funny looks from both the wife and the dog.

Thanks a lot!

Department of Redundancy Department

MANIACNUMBERONE

Saturday, February 21, 2004 8:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
Quote:
Originally posted by LtNOWIS:
Am I the only one who thinks it's a good, moral thing to kill evildoers, even if they're not attacking you personally?

Nope not alone one bit. I will go further, (proving how much a lower life than you I am) and say you don't wait till he pulls the trigger or hits you first. If you are sure that he is going to hit you, kill him first, before he kills you.

If "and only if" you are sure...

You're all getting into pretty iffy territory now. Defining "evildoers" and going so far as to take "moral" action against them. Whew!

I know you might be thinking, "we're only talking about when a guy has a gun pulled out, and for whatever reason you've decided he's gonna kill you, it's fine to kill him first." Of course. That's self defense. But that's not what I'm talking about here.

You said "...it's a good, moral thing to kill evildoers..." That's a blanket statement. I would say you're right in some cases, but I can think of instances where you're wrong.

For someone to think that way, first off they would have to decide that their version of "right and wrong" are the only correct one. That's real big of 'em. And really narrow-minded.

If everyone thought that way, then, of course, everyone would just be a bystander waiting to be labeled an "evildoer" by someone else and eventually hit first or shot first.

-------------------------------------------
Inara: Who's winning?
Simon: I can't really tell, they don't seem to be playing by any civilized rules that I know.
-------------------------------------------