Is it possible to be a soldier and be a good human being?

[Modem Butterfly]

Poll question: Is it possible to be a soldier and be a good human being?

This question is in followup to Mopaul's Saturday post as to whether soldiers would murder Americans if ordered to.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3098545

Judging from the responses to that thread, there's a whole lot of DUers out there who believe the very worst about our fellow men and women in the Armed Forces.

So now I'm wondering: do you folks think it's possible to be a soldier and a good human being? I'm not talking liberal or conservative here, I'm talking about not being the kind of person who murders without a second thought upon ordered.

[bryant69]

1. It depends on what you think a soldiers motivation is

If you believe a soldiers motivation is that he wants to put himself between danger and his community or his nation, well, that's a noble impulse.

If you believe a soldiers motivation is that he wants to shoot some brown people, well that's an evil impulse.

If you believe a soldiers motivation is that he wants money for college or he wants to get out of the 'hood, well, that's somewhere in between.

Personally I generally think the first one and the third one are more accurate reflections of what leads a person to become a soldier. And I think that some liberal's disdain for the Soldier is very snobbish. But I could be wrong.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[LiberalVoice]

8. What you are made to believe...

nad the truth are two very different things.

The fact still remains that we have soldiers murdering people in another country for NO REASON.

[Modem Butterfly]

10. I think it's a different thing when they're trying to kill you first

The problem I have with the Iraq situation is that our soldiers were put in a position of "kill or be killed" unnecessarily. You can't, or at least you shouldn't, fault a person for their survival instinct. But you can and should fault the people who put them in that position for no reason. And that is why I say that our soldiers have more to fear from us than we do from them.

[LiberalVoice]

11. And I suppose the innocent people we've murdered...

were just trying to kill us first huh? :eyes:

[Modem Butterfly]

15. Unfortunately, mistakes happen in war

When you put someone in a highly stressful, life-or-death situation far from home, their perceptions become distorted. Unfortunately, a mistake that might result in a bar fight at home results in a death in a war zone. That is part of the fortunes of war and it is exactly why we shouldn't put people in that position unless absolutely necessary.

[LiberalVoice]

20. Tens of thousands of dead...

were mistakes? Bullshit. Thats a pathetic excuse.

[Modem Butterfly]

23. Tens of thousands were innocents?

That's impossible.

Some of those people were killers. Some of those people weren't. Some of them were killed in an act of war. Some of them were killed by mistake. Some were killed by some of the other tens of thousands. Some of them were caught in the crossfire.

War is a messy business. We shouldn't seek it out, but we should be prepared for when it comes calling. We need a military, but we don't need to abuse them as we have done in Iraq.

[bryant69]

16. I appreciate the patronizing tone

But that's crap. Some Soldiers are undoubtadly doing bad things, like you say. Does that condemn them all?

What percentage of American Soldiers are murdering people for NO REASON (once again using all caps makes your argument stronger. It just does. I know it doesn't make any sense, but if you type will ALL CAPS your ARGUMENT will be STRONGER.)

My guess is less than 1%. DO you have any numbers?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[LiberalVoice]

22. Unfortunatly I dont have numbers.

Because the innocent deaths aren't being counted. Did you forget? "We don't do body counts."

Thanks for the all caps tip...its very enlightening.

[bryant69]

26. Ah.

So make an estimate. How many soldiers (serving in Iraq) are guilty of murdering Iraqi Civilians?

Also, one game some people like to play is to count every single death as an innocent civilian casualty. And then paint a picture of our soldiers just walking down the street blowing away Iraqis who are minding their own business. If someone attacks American Soldiers or other Iraqis and American troops put that person down, does that count as an innocent civilian casualty?

Bryant

[LiberalVoice]

27. No it doesn't

Does someone shooting at american soldiers occupying their country make them a terrorist?

[bryant69]

28. Oh Good Comback

No it doesn't. But if that American Soldier returns fire, I'm not going to blame him or her.

Please answer this question. In your estimation, what percentage of American Troops are guilty of murdering Iraqi Civilians? You can feel free to provide a range if you like.

[LiberalVoice]

29. Wasnt a come back

So let me get this right...The person fighting for his country isn't bad but the person fighting against him isn't either? Your logic is shit.

And I won't give an estimation because I dont know.

[bryant69]

30. Thank you

Allow me to explain my shitty logic. By the way don't feel like you have to be genteel with me; feel free to really let go if you feel the need.

President Bush and Saddam Hussein both made decisions that led our two countries into conflict (although clearly far more guilt lies with Persident Bush and his administration), and put American Soldiers in Iraq. The Soldiers didn't choose on their own to invade Iraq; that decision was made by President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and others.

Such that, because of bad leadership you have the spectacle of two sides fighting for their country, and I can't find it in my heart to condemn either side's soldiers (except in the case of murdering civilians, which some individuals on both sides have done).

The reason you won't give an estimation is that it won't come anywhere near 100%. I doubt even the most soldier hating individual would get it out of the 20% range, and most honest people would put it far lower than that. If you are going to condemn all the soldiers you need proof that they are all doing evil.

Bryant

[LiberalVoice]

31. Never

at any point in our lovely little conversation did I say that 100% of our soldiers were murdering innocent people.

The govt. cant make our soldiers fight. They do it of there on free will. Whether they realize it or not. No one HAS to go into a country and kill people who don't deserve such punishment.

The consequences of them not following orders is not worth the cost to many of them. Its simply easier for them if they do what they're told and thats not acceptable.

[bryant69]

33. So following order should be optional to US soldiers?

Interesting logic there. What do you suppose the long term effects of making military orders optional would be?

I don't know I guess we just look at it differently. I"m more interested in demonizing and attacking those who made the decisions that led us into this conflict. You seemingly would rather attack the soldiers.

That's your call, but the upshot of that policy, if followed by the Majority of the Democrats (which, thank goodness, it's not), would be to further marginalize the Democratic Party and Liberal / Progressive points of view.

Bryant

[LiberalVoice]

36. Why don't you stop making things up

and spinning what I say? Or can't you have a conversation with someone without having to do so?

The very simple fact is that 99.999999% of our soldiers would rather illegally occupy a country and help this criminal administration and its corporate masters rather then fight for what is right. Its simply easier for them to do so then to do the right thing.

[bryant69]

43. I'm not spinning things I'm tryign to understand your point of view

But I guess since you have a very black and white way of looking at things that can't stand up to much scrutiny, you'd find that frusterating.

That's hardly a simple fact, nor is it a simple matter of right and wrong. If soldiers can refuse to fight, can refuse to deploy, than we don't have a military anymore. Perhaps you'd find that an acceptable state of affairs, but I have a hard time accepting it.

In doing "what is right" as you suggest, American Soldiers would leave America considerably weaker and less able to defend itself. Is that "the right thing?"

More to the point, can you explain to me the benefit in attacking soldiers as opposed to the Administration? Regardless of an individual soldiers decision to go to war for this administration, aren't Bush and Rumsfeld and Cheney more accountable for the deaths in Iraq?

Bryant

[LiberalVoice]

46. Yes they are...

Ofcourse they are more guilty...but if you scroll up to the top of the page you'll find that this is not what this thread is about.

As I said in another post in this thread "I will not have blood on my hands." not for an unjust war.

"nor is it a simple matter of right and wrong."

Not illegally invading and occupying a country. Right. Illegally invading and occupying a country. Wrong.

If it does leave our military weaker then it can only be blamed on Bush and his cronies. For you to suggest that soldiers should further the agenda of this administration rather then leave the military is not right.

[IrateCitizen]

37. The government can indeed be quite coercive toward soldiers

Portraying it as simple "free will" on the part of soldiers is a complete canard.

Should a soldier disobey a direct order to deploy, that soldier is likely facing 12-14 months in a military prison, dishonorable discharge, surrender of all further military benefits, and a black mark against them for the rest of their lives.

Sitting behind a computer terminal with nothing to lose, it's easy to advocate that others make such sacrifices. But when you're in that position, it's not quite as easy a decision to make, especially when it's loaded with the feelings of esprit d'corps that most soldiers feel toward others they serve with.

Have you been in this situation? I doubt it, based on your comments on this subject. I have, so I feel I have a bit more authority on which to speak about it. I was an Army Reserve officer and filed for conscientious objector in Dec 2002. I told my battalion commander that I would refuse to take part in the conquest of Iraq. Before my eventual discharge, I was faced with the possiblity of my entire battalion (and me with it) being mobilized for deployment. Luckily, they ended up mobilizing only a part of it. To be honest, I still don't know what I would have done if ordered to deploy. I knew that we were over there for some really bad reasons, but at the same time I felt guilty abandoning the people I knew and had served with for years. To this day, I STILL feel anguish over this.

So, in short, I followed the path of my personal conscience. But knowing how difficult of a path is was, I would never presume to judge others for following the path that they are called to, even if it is different from mine. Having lived through this ordeal, I know that these answers are not nearly so cut-and-dried as you portray them to be. Perhaps if you spent a moment in the boots of these soldiers, you might understand.

[LiberalVoice]

44. Perhaps

I would gain a better understanding.

Althought I cannot be 100% certain I will say that as I feel now I would not have been able to go to Iraq. I would not have been able to fight in this immoral war. If it meant spending time in prison I would have done it. I will not have blood on my hands.

I applaud your willing to object and possibly face some pretty harsh punishment for not deploying with your battalion.

[IrateCitizen]

48. Do you still pay your federal taxes?

I will not have blood on my hands.

If you still pay federal income taxes, you still have blood on your hands. Federal taxes finance the United States military, after all. Therefore, if we are to adopt an either/or outlook to this question, the only way to avoid having blood on your hands is to stop paying federal income taxes used to finance the US military, even if it means going to prison.

Are you honestly ready to take such a stand? Even if it results in a much harder life for not only yourself, but also your spouse and any children you might have? Please think about it long and hard. Perhaps then, you might understand the gravity of this decision facing many soldiers.

[LiberalVoice]

52. Yes I do

I'm not saying that we as citizens are completely without blame either.

I dont know that I am..I honestly didnt mean to post anything that would seem like its all the militarys fault. Im just saying that if I were put in the situation to go and fight in a war such as the one in Iraq I would not do it even if it meant jail time.

[IrateCitizen]

54. So, you're saying you'd be willing to go to jail rather than go to war...

... but you're not willing to do so rather than pay your taxes?

Would I be incorrect in implying that you are also saying the only honorable thing for soldiers who don't believe in this immoral war is to refuse and face the consequences?

See, if that's the case, it's a glaring disconnect. One cannot advocate that others take a stance that will result in severe reprecussions without doing so themselves. The question of whether or not you would participate in the neocolonization of Iraq is a moot one, because it's not a situation in which you would find yourself. It's easy to make such proclamations when you're not realistically faced with the consequences.

However, the fact that you are not willing to go to jail because you refuse to pay taxes speaks volumes. I will readily admit that I am not willing to go to jail for that reason either. But I also don't presume to tell soldiers how they must resist. The only important thing is that all those who disagree with the current course resist in the way that their conscience compels them to. Refusal to serve is but one way to resist, and it is certainly not for everyone.

[LiberalVoice]

57. Maybe you're right.

It just sucks that those are the prices you have to pay now adays just to live.

[IrateCitizen]

62. And when were the prices less than today???

Being an aspiring historian, when I hear people lament about how difficult things are nowadays, how disenfranchised we all are, I have to wonder when this mythical golden age of citizen enfranchisement actually existed, because I've never seen evidence of one!

As Gandalf told Frodo in The Fellowship of the Ring, "We do not get to choose the time in which we live. What matters is that we make the most of the time we're given."

In my opinion, that means that each person should follow their conscience in the way that best suits them. Martyrdom is not a great way to go through life. That's the limitation that often prevents us from acting full-force. But it's also the balancing act we all must take part in as we go through life, and that balance varies from individual to individual. The correct course is not to criticize others for their personal balancing act, but rather to assist them in reaching it.

I will never criticize another's balancing act. I will readily lambast willful ignorance and inhumanity toward others, but I will not deign to consider myself omniscient enough to criticize anyone else's balance between individual action and personal considerations.

[LiberalVoice]

63. delete please

dupe

[LiberalVoice]

64. I'm 21 yrs old...

I was talking about my "now adays" not everyone elses.

[Coastie for Truth]

39. The blame should be on the "National Command Authority"

Bush - Cheney - Rummie - Wolfie - Feith - Sambone -- not the grunt/

[LiberalVoice]

49. Yes it should.

But a certain amount of responsibility must also lie in the hands of those that due there work.

[Coastie for Truth]

53. If you haven't been in their shoes don't criticize

As I appended, I lost my cousin Sandra Scheur on May 4, 1970 at Kent State. I don't blame the individual Guardsmen - I blame Nixon and Rhodes, and the incompetent Generals -- remember that's Ohio, the land of Ken Blackwell and Jim Petro (and Jerry Springer).

Also, as I appended, the anti-military elitism (directed at those conscripted kids and conscription motivated "volunteers") of the Berkeleyites really turned me off.

But, you live in an "All Volunteer" world - and your options are probably better then these blur collar kids who join the military for the money and the post-military educational opportunities.

My opinions were forged when the choice was "Go Underground" or "Go To Canada" (without any opportunity to come back, even to say Good-Bye to a dying parent or grand parent).

[Coastie for Truth]

38. 1 and 3 are the most common motivations.

I was there during VietNam.

Also, 99.9999% of most young people do not want to leave the US forever as a protest against the war. (I had a cousin who did - couldn't get back until Carter's pardoning)

As to second reason -- that kind puts an entire unit at risk -- and I would say (as a veteran) is a serious and compensable (VA $$$) mental illness.

[IrateCitizen]

42. No, I think you're quite right, bryant...

Personally I generally think the first one and the third one are more accurate reflections of what leads a person to become a soldier. And I think that some liberal's disdain for the Soldier is very snobbish. But I could be wrong.

No, you're spot-on. On both accounts. In fact, you described my motivations for accepting an ROTC scholarship to a "T".

What saddens me most is the knee-jerk response by many so-called "liberals" to demonize anyone who has spent time in the military or is currently in. It is completely possible to be anti-militarism and pro-soldier (as in pro-person). It seems some learned nothing from the anti-soldier wing of the anti-war movement during Vietnam, and are committing the same mistakes now.

[Modem Butterfly]

2. Here's my opinion:

The members of our military are not mindless automatons. Given an order that is obviously illegal, most will not carry it out. Moreover, I don't believe many of their commanding officers would even convey such an order. If our military were ordered to shoot down other Americans, people who are likely friends, relatives, and just plain fellow citizens, you would see a revolt of massive propotions. I think it would probably result in a coup d'etat. I believe that it would literally tear our nation apart at the seams, and in the resulting chaos, those responsible for trying to use our military in such a way would likely lose their liberty and perhaps their very lives.

No, we do not face a threat from the men and women in our armed forces. If recent history is any guide, they face a threat from us sending them into dangerous positions with uncertain missions and substandard or missing equipment and supplies. We have abused our military and our reserve military to the point of breaking. In using them to set foreign policy rather than defend America we have broken their faith in us. WE'RE the biggest threat to them, not the other way around.

I would also like to state that the argument that our men and women are just waiting for the orders to kill us is a kick in the teeth to anyone who's ever worn that uniform. Veterans and active duty military and reservists should be our greatest allies at this time. We do not help them nor do we help ourselves by fostering suspicion and hostility.

[Az]

4. The is exactly the reason we draw our military from the citizenry

Rather than creating a seperate social group for the military to draw from.

[Modem Butterfly]

24. Good point.

Do you think if Bush had actually gone to Vietnam, we'd be in Iraq right now?

I rather think not. And maybe that's an argument for some sort of compulory military service.

Or maybe not.

[Coastie for Truth]

41. This VietNam era Veteran Agrees

and that is the real danger of an "All Volunteer Military." It can be totally divorced from Real America.

[UL_Approved]

3. Freedom isn't free,

But it isn't for sale, either. War attracts murderers and rapists and thieves, but good people still end up over there. A study needs to be done to see if people who commit war crimes were already criminals to begin with. I'll bet that in most cases, this is true.

[The Stranger]

61. Freedom IS free. It is not bestowed by governments or militaries,

but is taken by them. According to the Enlightenment thinkers, and the Founders of the U.S., freedom comes from a Supreme Being, not from government. That is the "inalienable" part. Some rights are ceded to the government by the will of the people, hence the "We, the People," part.

Don't fall for the extrmist right wing, theocon/neocon propaganda: Freedom is free for the taking.

[LiberalVoice]

5. I dont see how after taking orders...

to slaughter thousands of innocent people leaves much room to debate how good a person you are.

Not all soldiers have killed, and just because you are one doesn't necessarily make you a bad person. But the "I'm just following orders" excuse is complete bullshit. If you are a soldier killing innocent people in Iraq you're a bad person.

On Edit: Just being a soldier doesn't make you a bad person. Doing bad things does.

[Modem Butterfly]

19. But that's just it: How do you know who's innocent?

Someone drives through a checkpoint. You hold your fire while he rams his van into a Bradley full of people you work with and detonates a bomb, killing himself and fifteen other people, some of whom are innocent locals. You've aided murde. You get to go back to that checkpoint. Later, someone in a similar van runs that same checkpoint for an innocent reason (maybe they're having an insulin seizure). You, acting to avert another catastrophe, shoot first. You don't have time to question. You're a murderer.

You often have no good choices in a war zone. We shouldn't be there at all. But you're still on that checkpoint, blood on your hands and blood on the ground. Now what?

[LynnTheDem]

87. If I walk up to you & put a loaded gun to your head & tell you I'm going

to pull the trigger, would it be a bad thing for someone to shoot me dead first? Would that person then be "bad" in your books?

There are kids in Iraq wearing US military uniforms, kids that are 3 years younger than you; kids that have never had a legal drink of beer. Kids that are scared fucking senseless who KNOW there are people in Iraq trying to KILL them. Kids that have SEEN their buddies next to them get blown apart.

SOME soldiers are nasty MFers, and were nasty MFers before they ever got sent to Iraq.

But MOST are scared shitless kids who until Iraq never saw anything worse than a nosebleed, who have now seen what it looks like when someone's scalp is ripped off and someone's limbs are blown off and how gleaming white the exposed bones are and how loudly a person can scream in agony.

YOU go walk in their boots awhile BEFORE you call damned good men, such as my husband, "bad people".

Try to stop the RIGHTWINGNUT thinking that everything is BLACK OR WHITE. Everything is NOT black or white; troops doing bad things should and must be punished but NOT ALL troops are doing bad things. Most are just trying to keep themselves and their buddies alive in a nightmare Hell they're stuck in courtesy of bush & the anti-American bastards who supported bush's invasion & occupation of a nation that hadn't been doing one damn fucking thing to ANYONE.

The Germans in the German Army weren't all "bad"; the "insurgents" in Iraq aren't all "bad"; and the US soldiers fighting to stay alive aren't all "bad", either.

[kaitykaity]

6. "Is it possible to be a Jew and be a good human being?"

:puke:

[Modem Butterfly]

7. What, exactly, is your point?

:shrug:

[kaitykaity]

75. Pretty self-explanatory really.

Replace "soldier" with Jew, Black, Arab, woman, homosexual.
See where it gets you -- a bad, bad place.

[Modem Butterfly]

76. Huh?

I say again, "wha' fu'?"

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Modem Butterfly]

78. I'm honestly confused

I simply don't see a connection between military service and being black, Jewish, gay, or anything else. You posted a seeming non-sequitor, I asked for clarification, your reply was equally cryptic, I again ask for clarification, you became nasty and huffy. I'm sorry that I simply can't read your mind and know what you meant. I guess that's what I thought discussions were for. Silly me! Please, feel free to place me on ignore. I'm clearly not up to having a discussion with someone as... enlightened... as yourself.

:)

:eyes:

[kaitykaity]

91. Let's try this again.

A plus B equals C.

You said "soldier"
I put in "Jew"

Can a person be a Jew and still be a good human being?
Can a person be a soldier and still be a good human being?

The first sentence is offensive.
So is the second.


Is that a clear enough explanation for you, or do I
need to type slower?

[Modem Butterfly]

92. Sorry, I have difficulty understanding Condescension-ese

Is that a clear enough explanation for you, or do I
need to type slower?

Being Jewish is an innate trait not dependant on behavior. On the other hand, an individual can become a soldier, then not become a soldier, then become a part-time soldier, then a full-time soldier, then a wounded non-soldier. One can even be a Jew and a soldier, or a Jew and a non-soldier.

I guess I thought your analogy was more than simply "Replace X with Y". If that was all you were getting at, I wish you had made yourself more clear when originally requested- it would have saved you time and a deletion.

Substituting the word Jew for soldier is about as enlightening as substituting the word grapefruit for good human being. Military service is simply incomparable to innate traits such as religion, race and sexuality. Moreover, it's insulting to members of subcategories that have suffered historic discrimination because it equates their oppression with disapproval of military service and it contains the underlying notion that one can't be simultaneously, say, a Jew and a soldier.

As for whether or not the question, "Is it possible to be a soldier and a good human being?" is offensive, I have to again ask the question I've asked so many, not expecting an answer for the obvious reason: "Did you actually read my post or are you simply responding to the thread title?"

[kaitykaity]

93. I have difficulty understanding "oh I'm dumb explain it to me"

and then a lecture on blah blah blah.

Homosexuality is based on behavior, so I guess I should
have used "Is it possible to be a homosexual and still be
a good human being?"

So there goes that argument.

Next.

Oh, and if it's possible to misinterpret a thread title
the you should have been more careful with the title then
shouldn't you.

Gaack.

[Modem Butterfly]

94. Wow, you don't even slow down, do you?

Homosexuality is based on behavior,

No, it's not.

so I guess I should
have used "Is it possible to be a homosexual and still be
a good human being?"

Or you could have said, "Is it possible to be a homosexual and still be a grapefruit?". It would have been more lyrical, and would have been equally as sensible.

Oh, and if it's possible to misinterpret a thread title
the you should have been more careful with the title then
shouldn't you.

I guess I shouldn't have operated on the assumption that people would actually read a post before responding to it. Silly me.

[ChairOne]

9. Just out of curiousity, why didn't you ask a question that was relevant...

... to the Mopaul issue, rather than a mostly irrelevant strawman question?

For example, something like "what percentage of US troops do you think would be willing to open fire on American citizens on American soil simply for political reasons?" seems like a fine question.

"Is it possible...?" is a useless question because it's stated so weakly as to not distinguish almost anyones' views from another's. LOL - "no, it is absolutely 100% impossible" - yah, I bet you get a lot of those answers... (For example, anyone inclined to give that answer will have to deal with its sexist and racist consequences...)

Just sayin - *good* questions are valuable things....

[Modem Butterfly]

13. Because I don't feel that's at the heart of the question

Asking "what percentage" is simply dancing around the real question, IMHO. And if you read MoPaul's thread, I think you'll find that question has already been discussed at length.

[ChairOne]

14. It was just an *example* /eom

[IrateCitizen]

12. Speaking as a former soldier opposed to militarism...

Absolutely a person can be soldier and a good human being. There are several good human beings I served with who are currently in Iraq and the Middle East as we speak.

Many of them don't even believe in the mission they've been assigned to do. However, they feel that they owe it to their fellow soldiers to be there, and they also probably live in fear of the retributions they would suffer if they decided not to go. There are also many others who have a good heart, but still have been caught up in the propaganda and convinced to believe they're doing a good thing.

None of this makes them monsters. It makes them human beings. They're not in a very easy spot, and it always galls me when I see people paint them in black-and-white terms. I always thought that one of the strengths of liberals and progressives, what separates us from the RW, is our ability to see things in varying shades of gray and to empathize with others.

Killing in war is not seen as "murder" by those pulling the trigger. It is largely a conditioned response. If you want to learn more, look at some of the work by former West Point psychology professor and airborne ranger LTC (ret) Dave Grossman -- particularly his book On Killing. It might make some of you who want to blame the soldiers instead look at the real danger -- the creeping militarism that has invaded our culture and society-at-large.

[LinuxInsurgent]

17. this is a hard question...

I think that soldiers do have the ability to think (and therefore refuse inhuman orders)...but all too often, they do not...and that's because they've undergone a brainwashing common to all militaries in the world...to strike out the individual sense of critical thinking and become a common part of the "unit". You are not supposed to think...even when generals profess that soldiers ARE taught to think about morality.

You are supposed to follow orders...that's it. Make you as much a robot as humanly possible.

For that reason, I voted "No...they are a danger to humanity". In the abstract, YES soldies have the ability to think...but in the CONCRETE...they usually don't...there's too much brainwashing and peer-pressure for morally-committed people to hang their hopes on the good consciences of soldiers. More often that not...they don't have any left.

A hard question indeed...

[mattclearing]

18. I voted no. Here's why.

I just don't find military service morally defensible.

If you accept that human beings are dwellers of Earth, and that ultimately what binds us together is greater than what sets us apart, you have to accept that borders and nation states are somewhat arbitrary delineations.

Simply put, I cannot justify killing for an imaginary line in the sand.

Nor can I justify killing for some rich guy who isn't going to fight with me.

Nor can I justify killing someone I don't know who never did anything to me, personally.

I respect the troops, but I don't understand the mental leap they have made that justifies killing people that never did anything to them, or that look like someone who did something to someone that looks like them.

There's nothing righteous about bloodshed.

Nothing just about killing.

No honor in pain and suffering.

No glory in oblivion.

I think many of them find they cannot reconcile that once they return.

If my hometown were being overrun by foreign invaders, I might re-evaluate my stance. Perhaps that's hypocritical. So be it.

The only people overrunning my hometown right now are these crazy Republicans. I'm gonna keep sticking it to them in a nonviolent way.

[Modem Butterfly]

21. So in your opinion, what drives someone to join the military?

[mattclearing]

25. If I knew that, perhaps I'd understand a bit better.

Anything I say would be condescending and would lack a proper point of reference.

[IrateCitizen]

32. Many join the military out of noble ideals. I did.

I grew up believing that the United States was a force for good in the world, and that I could best help spread that good by being in the military.

I received an Army ROTC scholarship, and effectively signed away the next 12 years of my life at age 19. It wasn't until my mid-20's that I started to discover that the US was NOT always such a force for good in the world, and that military force inevitably led to more problems than it solved. I also had a bit of a religious/spiritual epiphany that led me to reject many of the tenets of militarism.

But I was not the normal soldier in this regard. Most soldiers don't read Zinn and Chomsky. Most are more "regular folks" who get the majority of their news and opinion from TV and radio. Most hear the same myths over and over again that compelled me to join the military, without ever hearing another POV.

Overcoming these kinds of preconceived notions, especially while serving in the military, isn't easy. It isn't easy to accept the idea that pretty much all you believed in that compelled you to serve is a myth. Furthermore, such points of view are not exactly promoted nor accepted within military culture. It isn't an easy transition to make. I feel fortunate that I have met many people through Iraq Vets Against the War that came to largely the same conclusions that I did.

[Modem Butterfly]

35. My partner joined because he needed the money

He had been in JROTC in high school, and immediately after college, he got married and was attempting to support himself with a job in radio. When his then-wife graduated, he joined up for the money. They got a free move to Hawaii. He always viewed it as a means to an end.

My brother joined because, well, that's just what you did back where we're from. I grew up on the coast of Oregon in a dying timber town that wasn't near enough to anything to have much in the way of tourism. You remember the scene in F9/11 where Michael Moore is talking to the high school students about recruiters? Well, that's what my high school was like- military recruiters were omnipresent. We were taken to the school library in junior year and given the ASVAB. We were told it was compulsory. Our GPAs and standardized test scores were released to the military. Until watching F 9/11 this summer, I had no idea this wasn't the norm. Where I grew up, the military was one of the few options. Out of my graduating class of 80, only five or so went straight to college, and at my 10 year reunion, only three of us had four year degrees.

But I wonder about people who are signing up now, to enter the abbatoir.

[mattclearing]

79. Thanks for this.

I honestly expected to get flamed for this post.

I appreciate your thoughtful response, and am glad that you understand.

[IrateCitizen]

83. Well, my first instinct was to flame...

... but after I thought for a second, I tried another strategy. ;-)

I think it's just difficult for those who haven't been in military culture to realize what it's really like, the kind of feelings and loyalties in engenders, and how incredibly difficult it is to challenge the system from within.

[mattclearing]

97. Yes, that's why I demurred on why one joins.

How would I know? It could only be insulting.

[Coastie for Truth]

47. I joined because the Selective Service was on my butt

1. My request for a student deferment to get a PhD in econ was denied.

2. My local board was taking everybody.

3. The Coast Guard came through - so I could save lives (and be a maritime port "fire fighter" - not exactly a safe haven) instead of shooting brown people who had never attacked me.

Besides - I always wanted to be a fire fighter.

[Coastie for Truth]

45. An Honorable Conscientious Objector Position

[Coastie for Truth]

34. I am insulted by this post - it is like Rove's attacks on McCain and Kerry

FLAME ON

In 1968 I was at Coast Guard Base Alameda.

About six of us Coasties (short hair, clean shaven, always one geek with GI shoes) decided to go bar hopping in Berkeley - and we were stopped and denied service everywhere in Berkeley.

So, we went over to the Haight - and again, denied service everywhere. (And we were the "anti-war" GI's - draft motivated volunteers).

And then there was Karl Rove's ad hominem attacks against every veteran who has challenged Bush.

And then there was the "wink and nod" discrimination against veterans at our leading medical schools and law schools. Alan Bakke was only the tip of the ice berg.

Sorry to rant. This is a real sore point with me.

Any ad hominem response - will result in hitting the alert button.

FLAME OFF

[Modem Butterfly]

40. That wasn't my intention. Quite the opposite actually

My partner, who served during the last Gulf War, and I were quite distressed by the responses on MoPaul's thread. He took them as a sign that DU doesn't value the contribution of vets and active duty and reserve members. I posted this thread in order to get a more accurate read on DUers attitudes toward military service and to hopefully spark a discussion about the individuals who wear the uniform rather than the collective whole.

[Coastie for Truth]

50. Understood and Apology Accepted

Apology accepted. I didn't appreciate your reasoning.

With pride - I contained a bunch of port fires (not me alone - with lots of other Coasties and civilian fire fighters -- fire fighters are America's bravest -- we just lost a Brother in Los Gatos on Sunday), saved several lives, and sadly recovered lots of bodies.

--LT, USCGR (Discharged with my DD214CG and my GI Bill for my PhD in engineering)

[Modem Butterfly]

51. I grew up near Coos Bay, OR

The Coasties have saved many a butt that's near and dear to me.

[Coastie for Truth]

55. Coasties have a Fire fighter mind set

We are paid to go out and attempt a rescue - be it in a storm or a burning building. We are not paid to come back empty handed.

And like trauma docs and nurses - there is a real adrenaline high to "saving a life."

I can't describe it -- but trauma people, fire fighters, and Coasties "need" that "saving a life" high.

[Modem Butterfly]

58. I get it

I had a friend who died on 9/11. He'd been an EMT earlier in his career. His mother told me that once he'd had a chance to realize the extent of the situation he told her he had ID'd himself to the nearest firefighter and was determined to help. I think of him often.

[davidinalameda]

56. this has to be the dumbest thread that I've seen this week

and I've read most of the Gannon threads

[Modem Butterfly]

59. Thanks! I'll consider it a compliment!

:P

[Eloriel]

60. I think the question is insulting and ill-informed

Sorry, but I really do.

Look, people. There is great honor in the warrior archetype, which is a role that many people, both men and women, are called to follow. We NEED our warriors for they are fire fighters and police men and women, and yes, soldies and sailors. You will also find them among prosecutors and public defenders alike. You'll find them as the Erin Brokoviches and Karen Silkwoods of the world as well. You'll find them among emergency room doctors and nurses, among researchers aggressively going after
killer diseases, among Green Peace and other environmental warriors. You'll find them among fierce competitors such as sportsmen and women, or businesssmen and women, as well as everyday people who find themselves called upon to become heroes in certain situations.

ANY archetype can be corroded, degraded, debased and ANYone who follows a particular archetypal energy can do so badly, or in an incomplete or debased way.

So please, let's not use such a wide brush. The Warrior Archetype is an honorable one and greatly needed in our world, else it wouldn't exist at all.

[MizrahiIssac]

65. agree

[tabasco]

67. Thank you. I agree. The question is juvenile. n/t

[Modem Butterfly]

69. Did you read my post, or are you simply basing your opinion on my title?

[Modem Butterfly]

68. The question was deliberately phrased that way...

...in response to the posts on MoPaul's thread. I am trying to provoke discussion beyond the faceless, threatening "they" that so many seem to see when considering our military.

[Aristus]

66. When I was in Basic Training, we had an entire class on

what constituted lawful and unlawful orders. It was ironic; after several weeks by that point being taught to obey orders unquestioningly, we received a block of instruction telling us we have a legal, moral and ethical duty to disobey unlawful orders, like torturing prisoners, massacring unarmed civilians a la My Lai, and so on.

The people in Iraq who are torturing prisoners, or dragging civilians out of mosques by the legs and blowing their heads off would commit atrocities in whatever sphere of life they found themselves. These are the Columbine shooters, the workplace mass murderers, the commuter train madmen. Wearing a uniform neither changes that, or justifies it.

The military, unfortunately but understandibly, attracts some trigger-happy, bloodthirsty maniacs who are able to subsume their unholy tendencies until they erupt in situations like Abu Ghraib.

[Modem Butterfly]

70. Do you think that a lack of such training in the Reserves system...

...is a factor in those incidents?

I've known many vets, but not many folks who went directly into the Reserves or the Guard, so I'm asking the question out of ignorance, but it is my understanding that the preparation and training in many Guard and Reserve units is less than optimal. Could this have been a factor?

[Aristus]

73. I can't really speak to the kind of training soldiers undergo now.

This was back in 1986. The specifics of Army Basic Training are changing constantly. Remember, Reservists and National Guard troops undergo the same training as Regular Army personnel. They just go home after training instead of to a permanent duty assignment. If they receive the same kind of training I received back inthe '80's, then there should be no excuse for their conduct. Even if they didn't, there should STILL be no excuse for what they have done. There's a thing called common human decency. If they had a shred of it, they would have told their commanding officers to stuff it when ordered to torture and humiliate prisoners.

[Modem Butterfly]

74. Good point

My partner says that they were constantly reminded of the Geneva Convention and reminded that they had the duty to question, and if necessary, resist and report illegal orders. It's hard to imagine Guard and Reserve units not being trained the same way, yet that's exactly what the Reservists involved in the Abu Gharib (sp?) claimed.

I do agree that if one doesn't have a spine, all the training in the world can't create it.

[Occulus]

71. OK, MB, here's question for you, then

Since some people here seem inclined to judge the question itself and your own motives, I think someone needs to non-judgementally ask:

What exactly was it that made you ask this question in this particular way? Understand, I'm only asking; was there something that happened to you, personally, recently or ago, involving a less-than-respectable soldier?

[Modem Butterfly]

72. Did you read my post, or are you just responding to my title?

My partner and I were quite distressed to see the responses to MoPaul's thread last Saturday. He served during the last Gulf War, as did my brother. My partner is now convinced that he would be unwelcome on DU because of his veteran status. I would like to have a discussion on the individuals who serve in the military rather than the as the arms of some sort of nascent police state.

I assure you, my partner is a perfectly respectable veteran and as far as I could tell, a perfectly respectable reservist. I did not know him while he was active duty.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

80. Soldiers are tools. Used, and valued, by those in power. Cannon fodder.

Is it possible for them to be a "good human being". Yes. But, only if they have the courage to rebel against military authority.

USMC 1961-1965 Just to spare all the glorifiers of the military saying "But, you don't understand unless you've served."

[Modem Butterfly]

82. Where did you serve?

Most specifically, I'm curious if you served in then Indo-China.

My fatherr served in the Army about the time you were in the Marines, but he served in Turkey. He was in Communications, a "diddy bopper", meaning that he recorded messages that were sent in code, but did not translate that code. He came home with some interesting souvenirs though.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

84. I refused to extend my enlistment to go to SE Asia.

In early '65 we were already training for Vietnam. I was opposed to the idea of killing my fellow human beings for the sake of LBJ proving his "tough on Communism" credentials. When asked to extend my enlistment to go to Vietnam and "protect" our country from people who were trying to overthrow a corrupt and tyrannical government, I refused, and foolishly stated my reasons why. I was rewarded with 30 days of mess duty for my youthful idealism. Not long after I joyfully departed "The Crotch", as it was known to the inmates, enlistments were mandatorily extended.

[DistantWind88]

95. I'm sure the brave men who defended freedom during WW1

and WWII for instance would disagree with the stance you've taken in your posts.

Semper Fi.

[Modem Butterfly]

96. Respectfully, I believe they would support his right to take that stance

Isn't that what all service members have sought to defend, the right of Americans to take unpopular stands?

[IrateCitizen]

98. WWII is a viable argument. WWI is not.

WWI was the last of the "sporting wars" between major European Powers. Hell, it was a European war, not a World War, in a strict interpretation of the term. And in spite of what we are taught, it was one of the most unpopular wars in US History -- so unpopular, in fact, that the Wilson administration pushed through a law that made it a federal crime to advocate avoiding the draft in any way possible.

That's what earned Eugene V. Debs a 10-year prison sentence -- simply encouraging people not to cooperate with the draft.

References to WWII is often the last refuge for proponents of militarism. It is by far the closest we've ever come to a "just war", and in that respect was largely unique. However, the prevailing consensus among many prominent veterans of WWII seems to be that the barbarity of modern warfare should have convinced us all that it was to be avoided at all costs in the future.

But keep on beating that horse if it's workin' for ya....

[deutsey]

81. The military consists of Calleys and Thompsons

and everyone in between.

If you don't know what I'm referring to, look up the My Lai massacre.

[Hell in a Handbasket]

85. ah, the legendary DU posts that end up in NR or Rush's show.

yes, i've heard about these.

[Modem Butterfly]

86. You know, I hope this thread does

Certainly Rush or NR will misrepresent the postings on this thread, but if their misrepresentations cause someone who assumes that we're all opposed to military service to actually read this thread and see that we actually do support our troops, and in fact, some of us have been those troops, I'll consider my time on DU well spent.

[Hell in a Handbasket]

89. i would hope that it might be seen in a good light, too. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

88. Well, we certainly wouldn't want to upset Rush.

Gosh, he might say nasty things about those people who oppose war and don't glorify the military. We should only discuss those things that Rush approves of.

[Hell in a Handbasket]

90. i'd hope that you knew what i meant.

:hi: