This is not meant to cause trouble, it was just a topic we ended up talking about in my government class and i thought i would see how the citizens of this family felt. :D
Printable View
This is not meant to cause trouble, it was just a topic we ended up talking about in my government class and i thought i would see how the citizens of this family felt. :D
Go to war. My family has a strong military tradition, and while I may or may not like a given politician, our armed services serve all of us, not a certain political party or politician.
Only by going to war could I assure that at least one soldier fought fairly and with the honor, dignity and respect all human being deserve. If I am not willing to do that myself, how can I ask others to?
War, I agree completely with what Karen says.
I say go to war, but I could be biased....read on....
This is exactly how Terry ended up in Vietnam! He was just a teenager (but at least 18?) and had committed some stupid little petty crime. The judge told him either enlist or you're going to jail - so he enlisted in the Marines. He credits the military for turning his life around. Had he gone to jail and been amongst all the other criminals sharing their tricks of the trade (so to speak), who knows where he'd be today. But because the military taught him discipline and many many other things about life, and the fact that I'm sure he prayed more than once "Please God, if you can just get me back home in one piece, I'll never be bad again." There's a good chance he would have been drafted anyway, but this way the judge let it be Terry's choice whether he wanted to serve his country or have a record.
Call me a coward, but I'd rather go to Canada.
War. I'm right there with Karen on this one.
How can anyone answer this question...if you will..... unquestioningly? If I thought the reason for war was just and right....I would be the first to sign up. It is not the brand of the politician that concerns me....it is the reason for the war.
If I am going to perform a task where the objective is to kill as many human beings as possible (who may have no more desire to be there than an order) it needs to be for a just cause.
If I thought the reason for the war was NOT just I would take jail.
I believe being a good citizen and a patriot demands more than simply following orders.
Neither...
Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or 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 to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country
Hermann Goering
I like a good fight.....I'm gone.
And to get a chance to run around singing,
This is my rifle, This is my gun
This one's for fighting..
PRICELESS! :D
------------------------------------
Thanks Terry!
-------------------------------------
Sometimes you HAVE to fight.....
Butch Thomas Goring
Los Angeles Kings
1971-1980
Sorry, Donna, but that's not an option. It's either jail or war. So which is it? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by moosmom
Richard - Terry says "You're welcome." :)
This should answer the question:
I'll admit it, I'm a wuss. I have nothing but respect for those who serve our country because I know I'd never want to do it. I'd rather be in jail cell with cable television then out in the desert. Many US prisions pamper their inmates. They get a/c, television, workout room.... However if I were a guy I think my choice would be different as it seems that men in jail have a much worse time than women in jail.
I have to agree with Laura. There's no way I could do what our soldiers do. I wish I could. :(
I voted that I would go to war, but I think it might depend on the circumstances. It's hard for me to say what I would do in a given situation until I am actually in that situation.
Depends on the war.
To answer the question, Iraq or jail? I would go to jail.Quote:
How can anyone answer this question...if you will..... unquestioningly? If I thought the reason for war was just and right....I would be the first to sign up. It is not the brand of the politician that concerns me....it is the reason for the war.
And 'Thank You' too!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Human
------------------------
Sorry to move this into a different direction but.....
When you have an army who's men and women are going to say"Why?" everytime they get an order, you do not have an army any more.
I find that I admire our soldiers (forget the justification for the war for a second, OK?) MORE because the go to war without asking questions.
DO NOT DISCOUNT them because they do not ask "WHY?"
Elevate them because they put aside THEIR beliefs to do a job that some of us want to do, but can't - and that some of us have the courage to admit they cannot.
No war is "just" and I know that no soldier wants to go and kill anyone for s and giggles.
------------------------
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
-Plato
I was thinking about this as I am preparing for a class I will be teaching next week (it is in L.A. RICHARD...wanna come?) One event we discuss is when the US government sent Federal troops (at the request of John D. Rockefeller) to put down a strike being conducting by American workers at a mining operation in Colorado.
Shoot first...questions later?
So....a solider is not responsible for his or her actions if they are "only following orders?" Wow....I get a feeling of deja vu all over again!"Quote:
I find that I admire our soldiers (forget the justification for the war for a second, OK?) MORE because the go to war without asking questions.
Can I bring you an apple? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
Why would they shoot mime workers??? Actually, Marcel Marceau kinda bugs me....
Whoa,
Let me look that one up before I make stupid statements???
---------------------
I think that there was a discussion about this before.
Soldiers are always told to defend themselves.
If you are shot at, you shoot back.
If people didn't take up arms no one would get killed.
Here's a bomb belt, go blow yourself up! is a little different than "defend yourself from people who are being stupid by shooting at you or blowing themselves up while they drive up to you."
I think that the simplification of "just following orders" is more dangerous that a loaded m-16...
Soldiers do have the ability to question an "unreasonable order"- I have yet to hear of any officer asking his men to do that....also I haven't heard of any elected official tell their constituents to do the same.
I have to dig into my bag of SA comebacks-sorry.........
If war is not the answer, what was the question? :confused:
I voted war because I was assuming if I went to jail that meant I had done something bad. I guess that was probably a wrong assumptions. Still I would rather be somewhere where my kids could be proud of their mom.
ES, The use of federal troops for law enforcement is patently illegal in the United States. Posse comitatus ring a bell? However, in the past, right or wrong, we have given a pass to Officers who order their troops to fire on civilians if they were following orders from higher. We even celebrated one, and elevated him to a 5 star command, Gen. Douglas Macarthur.
ANY United States soldier who thinks that they are being given an illegal order has the right and the duty to question the order. Officers and NCO's are given classes in the law of land warfare, and are expected to enforce it. No troop does or should question every order, correctly (in most cases) assuming that their superior would not order them to commit an illegal act. When a superior gives a questionable order, it is questioned (Sir, would you please restate that? I'm not clear on what you meant?) and if the order is illegal, the NCO or senior leader present under the person issuing the order is supposed to relieve the person of duty. That is an extreme case, but that's the way the book plays out.
The purpose of war is NOT to kill as many human beings as possible. The purpose of war is to eliminate the enemy's will and ability to resist, which can be done with little or no killing. If war's purpose was to kill as many people as possible, all we'd need is an Air Force and a few good bombs, no army would be necessary. If all the troops have keeping them in place is an order, and they have no will to resist, then the army ceases to exist, as the Iraqis did in 1990-91 and as the italians did in the African campaign during WW2. Those are just two of many cases of mass surrender or complete mutiny.Quote:
If I am going to perform a task where the objective is to kill as many human beings as possible (who may have no more desire to be there than an order)
LH,
thanks for cleaning that up. What I meant to say is that IF a CO told his command to go out and "kill everything that moves" (while it is a great movie line) it don't fly in real life.
ES,
I understand your point of view.
On Sept 12 2001 I would have gladly gone out an throttled ANYONE who was involved with Sept 11.
Iraq is a dicey place to be. There are quite a few more questions than answers.
One of the things that bug me is the question of the "exit strategy"?
Are we supposed to throw up our hands and say, "IT'S A SPLIT DECISION-
everyone go home and we'll get ready for the next one?"
We have to win-therefore we have to tough it out.
Once you start a fight with a bully, you have kick his arse, otherwise when you get up to walk away he's gonna jump on your back and kill you.....
All Chicken S AHs fight that way.
Flying airplanes into buildings and getting kids to strap on a bomb isn't really a fair fight.
-----------------------
We are hamstrung by people who claim that they US has killed "hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians"
A nuke is far more cost effective and has less potential for military deaths.
We gotta play by the rules, so we send the troops into harm's way.
Any kind of war is distasteful, messy and full of atrocities-from both sides.
I can see the guys from Viet Nam being vocally 'Con-War' But, I can assure you that they would willingly bear arms again should it come down to it.
Historically, the numbers of men KIA have declined over the past century with every war that shows it's ugly face.
Does is mean that wars are getting cleaner? Smarter? Easier?
Nope, dead is dead. Two thousand is alot, 58,000 is harder to grasp, a few million it alot tougher to wrap my head around.
And how many cases are there of a whole lot of people getting killed before it was over? More than two?Quote:
Those are just two of many cases of mass surrender or complete mutiny.
Curious on what basis you make that statement. Are you personally familiar with every guy who fought in Viet Nam?Quote:
I can see the guys from Viet Nam being vocally 'Con-War' But, I can assure you that they would willingly bear arms again should it come down to it.
The question was "War or Jail". You guys are quite free to follow orders blindly. Me...I want a truthful and sound reason before I go off killing people.
I voted jail...well, for this war. It's like the question, would you jump out of an airplane with a pararchute, if you didn't know if it worked, for a million dollars? I don't want to die, and I don't want to be at war with Iraq. It's not that I don't support the soldiers individually, it's that I don't support the reasons for going to war with every Muslim country on the map. Personally, I don't want to be the people you see on the videos, about to have their head sliced off. It dosen't look fun...I'm sure they regretted their decision to join the military when they felt the blade touch their skin.
And hey, every other friend and ex boyfriend of mine has been in jail, is in jail, etc. I'd probably get along great. :p
No, I am not familiar with every guy that fought in VN.Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
But I do know my cousin, who has some hellacious scars across his belly from a place called Khe Sahn. We have talked about war.
--------------------------------------
I think that all people who oppose this illegal war should stop paying their taxes, but, if they support the troops, we won't have any money to give them what they need to be safe, stay safe and carry out their mission- "blind soldiers" need bullets and beans, too!
I say give them all my tax money.
-------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre
http://www.petoftheday.com/talk/show...08#post1342008
My tax dollars at work!!!! :eek:
ES, If someone in my platoon follows orders blindly, I want them the hell out of the army. There's a difference between blind obedience to orders and having the discipline to follow orders. The modern battlefield is far too complex for mind numbed soldiers. We need thinking soldiers, not automatons.
What is the difference?
And RICHARD....1912...Woodrow Wilson....Ludlow Massacre....
ES, there's a huge difference, but it's impossible to explain to someone who hasn't experienced it.
Whoa,Quote:
Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary
It was 1914, and how did Rockefeller, as a mine owner, get the Colorado state governor to send the Nat'l. Guard in? :confused:
Me thinks me smells something nasty underfoot!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre
I read up on it yesterday.....I posted this link but didn't post it correctly.
I'd go to war. I realize our country and freedoms need to be protected, and even if I did or did not agree with the reasoning behind any given war, I'd still choose war since I want to be one of the many protecting our freedoms. Some countries wouldn't give you a choice of war vs. jail - they'd just put a gun in your hand and send you to war.
Not only that, but once I return home, I am considered a hero (though this would not be the reasoning behind choosing war over jail) and can proudly dispaly my veteran status on resumes, etc. An ex-con? They are denied jobs for haven been in prison, they are looked down upon as deadbeats of society. No thanks - I'll be the hero who upholds our freedoms and protects those freedoms.
Now that said, would I join the military tomorrow to go to war? Not on your life! :p I am too much a wimp - I mourn over a squashed bug. I could never witness death, and could never inflict death myself. But given those two choices, I choose war.
lol I'll join you on that oneQuote:
Originally Posted by moosmom
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady's Human
Good lord. That is a lovely, patronizing statment. ES- I guess you are just too dumb to understand some things...silly woman. :rolleyes:
Cataholic, that was not patronizing, just fact.
Oh, I see. Pardon me for not bowing down, humbly, my back is a bit sore this evening.
I somehow missed the concept that one must experience firsthand an event before 'understanding' it. Personally, I have experienced firsthand neither war nor jail, but, am quite comfortable with my opinion that I want neither for myself.
I imagine the list might be near endless of the events (wo)man has not experienced firsthand, yet has knowledge of. To hear anyone make the comment you did up several posts above IS patronizing. Your next post, declaring it 'fact' is nearly dismissive. I would imagine ES has the ability to comprehend many concepts she hasn't experienced firsthand...really, she is quite bright. (Remember, it was YOU that didn't want mind numbed soldiers.... ).
To understand the broad generalities of a concept one can read about it. To truly UNDERSTAND something as complex as the interaction between soldiers it has to be experienced. I'm not being condescending, I'm just stating a fact.
There are things in the military that I could never have understood, even though I have read a lot of history, many bios, etc. There are things that HAVE to be experienced.
I don't think he implied at all that someone wouldn't understand just because of their gender. He knows better.
I understand that, as someone who has never been a soldier, there are some things about it I don't understand, not because of any lack of intellectual capacity, but because of lack of experience. Just as there are things about being a lawyer that I am sure I do not understand, and there are things about being a Mass Art student you wouldn't understand.
BTW, "Silly woman" Has not one damned thing to do with it. I've served with male soldiers who i'd never allow near me in a tight spot, and I've served with women who could out perform many male soldiers.
Good grief. There are many things, even COMPLEX matters, that I do understand, even without experiencing them. Maybe you two are different, and do need the experience, I can't say. But, to lump everyone together and say "you can't understand cause you haven't been there", or, "I am just stating a fact" when it isn't a fact, it is your opinion, is inane.
Your statement:
ES, there's a huge difference, but it's impossible to explain to someone who hasn't experienced it.
was patronizing. Hey, its a fact! I said so. I can't explain it to you. You just wouldn't understand. It is a lawyer thing. You didn't go to law school. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Cataholic, you will never understand for the simple reason that you refuse to open your mind up to the POSSIBILITY that there are things you can't wrap your limited amount of grey matter around.
Was that condescending enough?