Big Dog on Berkeley

[21]

Asking again, Sig, how old are you? Just generally....under 25?

 

[SigR]

So you respect him because that's what he always wanted to do? If he always wanted to be a serial killer, you'd offer your respect still if he managed to attain that status?

You just compared a Marine to Ted Kaczynski.

I think I'm done now.

Actually I didn't. I was making a conceptual point that you deflected with hyperbole because you didn't want to deal with the concept behind my argument.

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

SigR is telling the truth.

He wasn't comparing a marine to The Unibomber. He was going more for a Zodiac KIller, or John Wayne Gacy, or perhaps Ed Gein vibe.

(Go ahead and look those names up, Sig).

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Sig's writing really young here, but he is all around an interesting point.
Does "supporting the troops" always and forever mean supporting any action taken by the military in general, and individual soldiers/units in particular? If not, then what are the permissable boundaries of criticism, and should we even be talking about "permissable" bounds of criticism in a free society?

 

[SigR]

It'd do all of you well to stop hurling insults and witticisms and actually engage in debate if that's your purpose here.

 

[buckweaver]

So you respect him because that's what he always wanted to do? If he always wanted to be a serial killer, you'd offer your respect still if he managed to attain that status?

You just compared a Marine to Ted Kaczynski.

I think I'm done now.

Actually I didn't. I was making a conceptual point that you deflected with hyperbole because you didn't want to deal with the concept behind my argument.

The concept of your argument was that anyone joining the military today is unworthy of respect, because politicians have made a pattern of using the military for unworthy purposes.

It's a weak argument because you choose to deflect blame from where it belongs -- namely, the politicians who make those decisions -- and instead denounce the young men and women who choose that as a (very valid) career path and want to do their jobs well.

It's like blasting agate clerks for the fact that newspapers choose not to invest in their product and are laying off hundreds of employees. A completely worthless point.

And yes, you just compared a Marine to a serial killer, foof.

 

[21]

It'd do all of you well to stop hurling insults and witticisms and actually engage in debate if that's your purpose here.

I'm not insulting you, I asked how old you are.

Are you aware that all American men ages 18-25 are still required to register with the Selective Service in case the government needs to reinstate the draft?

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

OK, buck
Was My Lai Calley's fault or McNamara's? Or both?
Remember, before you answer, that a pilot named Hugh Thompson was in exactly the same place at exactly the same time under exactly the same circumstances as Calley, and stopped the killing, drawing down on Calley's men to do so.

 

[zeke12]

BTW, I'll further complicate matters.

Don't blame the politicians. We get the leaders we deserve.

Blame the people who don't vote.

 

[buckweaver]

OK, buck
Was My Lai Calley's fault or McNamara's? Or both?
Remember, before you answer, that a pilot named Hugh Thompson was in exactly the same place at exactly the same time under exactly the same circumstances as Calley, and stopped the killing, drawing down on Calley's men to do so.

Well, if we're going to go that route, I'll answer with this:

My Lai doesn't happen if Robby Mac and LBJ don't send troops to Vietnam.

Not saying everyone in the military are all-knowing, all-good holy creatures. That's not the point. But Sig blaming the troops for the politicians' decision is ridiculous.

 

[writing irish]

Strange that a thread that began with such fail is actually getting interesting.

I'm hoping all the cheerleaders for war reading this thread are taking notes...Sig's an example of someone who actually does not "support the troops." Pretty clear contrast between Sig and 99% of those who oppose the Iraq war.

Zeke, you're correct in that failure to act to prevent evil places one in a position of moral culpability. I'm reminded of the part of the prayer book where the faithful ask for forgiveness "for things we have done and for things we have left undone."

 

[Herbert Anchovy]

Sorry, there is no existing moral imperative to support the troops or this admin's rage militaire.

If you get called a traitor enough, just cite your taxes as sufficient support.

 

[SigR]

It's the government's fault foremost. Absolutely. I'd never argue that. And as Zeke pointed out, the People for letting the government get away with it.

I think it is also the fault of individuals who join the military. "Somebody's got to do it" is no excuse. You join because it is the right thing to do. Else you are a *****, whether it be for money, status, respect, or even comradery, you are selling out, producing nothing, and allowing yourself to be used.

But yeah, there is a lot of blame to be painted on a lot of canvases. Just because I'm singling out soldiers here doesn't mean I don't have equal contempt for the politicians who put them there and the People who elect the politicians.

 

[buckweaver]

You join because it is the right thing to do. Else you are a *****, whether it be for money, status, respect, or even comradery, you are selling out, producing nothing, and allowing yourself to be used.

I consider myself idealistic, but damn. That's even too much for me.

As many people on this board/in this profession can tell you, "the right thing to do" doesn't pay the bills.

Choosing a job -- and if you know many common soldiers, that's what it is, even if only for four years -- rarely comes down to being "the right thing to do."

 

[SigR]

It'd do all of you well to stop hurling insults and witticisms and actually engage in debate if that's your purpose here.

I'm not insulting you, I asked how old you are.

Are you aware that all American men ages 18-25 are still required to register with the Selective Service in case the government needs to reinstate the draft?

My age is not relevant to the debate or my positions. And yes, it is a not-so-subtle insult to ask someone how old they are in the context of disagreeing with his or her position.

I turned in my Selective Service form when I turned 18. I sighed.

 

[SigR]

Choosing a job -- and if you know many common soldiers, that's what it is, even if only for four years -- rarely comes down to being "the right thing to do."

I think it needs to be for something like becoming a soldier. I agree with you that the most important thing is just getting out there and providing for yourself. And with most jobs that's fine...there is no morality linked to the job. Becoming a soldier demands more than that. You are holding a gun and making decisions about someone else's life, death, and freedoms. That's more than just taking a job.

 

[buckweaver]

Becoming a soldier demands more than that. You are holding a gun and making decisions about someone else's life, death, and freedoms. That's more than just taking a job.

And for the auto mechanics and electricians and combat correspondents in the military? What about them?

 

[Stoney]

Can't say I wholly agree with him, but I will give Sig chutzpah points for crossing a line where nobody else here has gone. Almost everyone now says they're against the war, but nobody else has gone that extra step of also declaring oppositon to the troops.

Of course he only does it behind an anonymous screen name.

 

[writing irish]

I'm reminded of when Maximum Rock and Roll's gadfly columnist Mykel Board (a sort of anarchist equivalent of the right-wing hate radio talk-show hosts) sported a "**** the Troops" lapel pin during the 1991 Gulf War. He wore it on the streets of...Berkeley.

Not to derail the discussion between B-Dub and Sig, but I'd like to address Fenian's question

Sig's writing really young here, but he is all around an interesting point.
Does "supporting the troops" always and forever mean supporting any action taken by the military in general, and individual soldiers/units in particular? If not, then what are the permissable boundaries of criticism, and should we even be talking about "permissable" bounds of criticism in a free society?

Seems obvious to me, but clearly not obvious to many, that any decent ethical system demands that a war must meet the requirements of what ethicists/theologians have called a "Just War." Automatically asserting before the fact that any war one's country wages is a Just War (simply by virtue of the fact that it's one's own country) seems a blatantly ethically indefensible position...unless you actually have nationalism as the Basic Principle of your ethical system, which is itself an abhorrent place to start (and certainly not "Christian," BTW). So citizens of a democracy have not just the right, but a moral imperative to put any war waged by their government to the Just War litmus test.

 

[zeke12]

The only problem with that, irish, is that you don't get to sign up for "just wars", you sign up for stretches of time, and fight, well, just the wars they tell you.

In other words, by the time the choice could be made, the soldier is in a pretty tough legal position. Especially because our laws really only recognize concientous objectors who are opposed to ALL wars -- people who wouldn't sign up to be in the military, anway.