Supporting the troops - Page 2

This is a dummy argument that only exists because things have gotten so bad in Iraq that liberals can now say what they thought all along. "Supporting our troops" is just political bullshit. Means absolutely nothing. As for the responsibility of the troops, I would say they are no more responsible for this war than any other American that in any way participates in the system. I was against the war, but by being American I believe I am just as responsible as any other "patriotic" American that joined up with the INTENTION of "protecting and serving". I believe in collective responsibility, it's why I'm a liberal, and a believer in democracy and I wouldn't apply a libertarian ideology to this situation just cause I'm on the other side of the issue. Doesn't mean I don't think its wrong, but I think its my responsibility to fix that, and I think the American people took some of that responsibility in the 2006 election. I also think it is our responsibility to punish those who made illegal decisions.

I disagree with that. Most guys who join the military don't make their decision based on the ethics of what the military does and why it exists. They're thinking about it on a personal level, as in what does it get me and what do I have to give up. They don't judge the organization as a whole. Yes, that can be called irresponsible, but the alternative might be working a shittier job with lower wages, meaning that one's family suffers so that the moral conscience is satisfied. So, there's the responsibility one has to society and then to family, with the latter inherently coming first. Fulfilling one responsibility may be necessarily accomplished by violating the other, as in this case it is--which is why you will find numerous decent men in the military who would strongly vote against killing the fuck out of people.

If you join the military now, there is what, a 90% chance you will be going to Iraq to fight? I get that not everyone who joins the military will end up on the business end of a rifle, but many who join now will. They need fighters, and they are hiring very few specialists or trainers or whatnot at the moment, as people who have those jobs are not getting killed or in a hurry to quit/retire, because hey, they don't have to fight.

This idea that your right to support your family trumps someone else's right to live is repugnant. Bite the bullet, get some student loans, and get back to school if your life is so shitty or you are broke. Christ, by the time I was done school I was $50,000+ in the hole, and that was after working shit jobs like overnight truck unloader at Walmart and pumping gas, at the age of 24 no less! Now that debt is being handled and I have made a way better life for myself and for my family. You always have choice. This idea that someone's life is so goddamned desperate that they have to join the military or go hungry is a convienient moral dodge, a fantasy.

And again, if there was a war going on where there was a clear reason for it (i.e. the USA got invaded, the US is helping to stop genocide) then joining the military is honorable and should be done. I do have pity (like I have said earlier) for people who were in before Iraq. But you would have to be a complete fool to not know what joining now will entail.

Our country included in that?

You have to be in the Air Force.

You're the exact kind of idiot I wish that soldiers, airmen, sailors, and Marines shouldn't have to lay their lives down for.

Do you guys honestly think that by pulling out of Iraq the situation will "improve"? That it will be solved? Cause I don't. What is more likely is that a civil war between shiite (hakim) and shiite (sadr) and shiite and sunni will likely break out. Lots of people will be killed. I think a lot of people join up for the war in Iraq cause they want to help. Yeah, there are people who want to kill. But how many? What percentage? I've been against this war from the start. But I'm not going to question these kids in the same way you guys will. I'd much rather question the people who sent them there. Again, "supporting our troops" is political bullshit, it means nothing. But I wouldn't either condemn all the troops or praise all of them, they like us are individuals, some are noble and some are not.

And as was stated earlier, that's going to happen no matter when we pull out; waiting won't prevent that. If we pull out tomorrow or ten years from now, the result will be the same. So are you suggesting that we commit ourselves to occupying Iraq for time and all eternity? Because that's the alternative. And to suggest that there will be a better time to pull out is to suggest that we can ever be part of the solution, which is sadly misguided. Our presence is a large part of the problem, so extending our stay clearly can't be part of the solution. Stay or leave, today or next century, it's a no-win situation.

I'm not saying we should stay. I'm not sure what I'm saying. I would specifically not advocate for a Bush run military to stay. would I give someone like Wesley Clark a shot to try to stabilize things for the sake of the millions of Sunni? Maybe. I think its easy to talk about this in terms of "stay" or "go" but the potential for hundreds of thousands dead makes me show pause. I honestly think it cannot be that simple, and I would have to be in a position where I was receiving intelligence on a regular basis (as well as more educated and mature) to be able to make the decision. I actually was not too unhappy with the Iraq Study Group Report (which I read in its entirety) in the sense that I think it was realistic about the situation on the ground and its focus on a diplomatic solution involving other countries in the Middle East.

I hate to be dramatic, but I don't think its silly to say that us pulling out of Iraq could lead to another major war shortly. The Saudi Arabians and other emirates have said they will back the Sunni. The Iranians are clearly already backing much of the Shiites. Throw in potential instability in the oil supply and you have the makings of a really big crisis.

First, because you were able to go to school by getting loans and working simultaneously doesn't necessarily mean that anyone can do the same. That's Republican "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" bullshit if I ever heard it. "I did it, so anyone else can." Wrong. That everyone should go to college is a myth. Besides, a lot of people don't even have available the information about their options; many people entering college don't have a clue what the FAFSA is or how to fill it out.

Second, no one said that one's right to support his family trumps another's right to live. What I said was that if one had to choose between the tangible option of supporting his family by enlisting or the more abstract option of declining to enlist based on moral grounds, that's hardly a choice at all. Saying that people like that, who enlisted after the war began, don't deserve any support at all is completely ridiculous, one-sided horseshit. You're living in a dream world if you think decisions like that are so clear cut.

If we pull out of Iraq, things might get worse for a while but international pressure will improve things. Thing is, I don't think Saudi Arabia and Iran want to fight a proxy war with each other. They might enjoy the schadenfreude (sp?) of watching the US fail miserably in Iraq, but if they had direct responsibility, I'm pretty sure that they would like to not see all out civil war right on their doorstep.

I don't know man. These countries are willing to send troops into Somalia, Afghanistan and Lebanon, I wouldn't be suprised if they did the same thing with Iraq. The support doesn't have to be full scale, cause the country is messed up enough that all it needs to be is prodded for it to explode.

Pressure has only accomplished this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6226953.stm so far. See, unlike the Bush administration, I don't think the Iraqi's are really interested in a stable democratic system. I wouldn't be suprised if they are more interested in revenge.

And let me state for the record. I'm not trying to be definitive. My entire point is that this is a nuanced situation. I just don't want the US to pull out, and we have another Darfur/Yugoslavia. Or maybe that is the best thing, I don't know. I wish I did.

Yeah but...Ludwig is Canadian...so...

So, in all honesty, what's the difference between a soldier and, say, an assassin? Your essential job description is to kill for money in both circumstances. Granted, that's not all there is to it, but that's still the fundamental purpose behind the very existence of your occupation.

That is bullshit. The essential function of an assassin is to kill. To truly be an assassin, one must have killed. A soldier is a generic term. The essential function of a soldier could be to guard, to defend, to attack, to provide logistics for defense/attack or to provide food (a cook). A soldier is a broad category that could encompass something like an assassin. I'd argue that the essential function of a soldier is to serve in the defense/offense of a country. That is involved with death, but I don't think its much worse than living and paying taxes in that country. Most US soldiers have not killed. Most of the people being killed in Iraq today are probably not being killed by US soldiers.

They'd side with the aliens.

If you're going to pull hypothetical situations from thin air, at least make them interesting.