Who's Patriotic Now?

Mr Spinkles · Jan 25, 2005

lilithu said:
Anti-war is not the same thing as anti-military or anti-service.

That would explain why so many Democrats served in the military, but it would not explain why so many of them participated in wars.

For the record, this is all just political rhetoric--I don't believe there are substantially more veteran Democrats than veteran Republicans, nor do I believe it matters. I can still remember my friends arguing over which team--the Yankess or the Red Sox--had the ugliest player. I find this discussion no less trivial.

lilithu · Jan 25, 2005

Mr_Spinkles said:
For the record, this is all just political rhetoric--I don't believe there are substantially more veteran Democrats than veteran Republicans, nor do I believe it matters.

I don't believe that there are more vetran Democrats than veteran Republicans either, nor that it matters. But the point of contention as far as I am concerned is the Republican claim that Dems are weak on the military and thus less fit to protect this country.

Mr_Spinkles said:
I can still remember my friends arguing over which team--the Yankess or the Red Sox--had the ugliest player. I find this discussion no less trivial.

The Mets have the cutest player. The only good thing about the Red Sox is that they are not the Yankees.

TheIdealist · Jan 26, 2005

I dont think military service does not really matter anymore in politics and to those it does they are outnumbered by those after money now

Andra130 · Jan 27, 2005

The "list" is definitely an interesting topic of conversation, but I have a question to those engaged in this thread... how many of you have served in the military?? Not to criticize, but how can we disparage those who dont serve if we dont serve ourselves??

Druidus · Jan 27, 2005

I would not be in the military, because I cannot kill unless defending life itself. One could argue that I am protecting life, the life of our soldiers, however, they willingly choose to kill and have the chance to be killed, unless they are drafted. I don't live in America anyway.

Andra130 · Jan 27, 2005

Ah, I see.

I suppose that I am just not that observant, not having noticed that you are not American. It is rather refreshing to see our country through the eyes of some one foreign.

As far as the killing thing, the purpose of the military is not to just randomly go and kill people; it is to defend our families, our rights and ourselves. As far as Iraq goes I am a little ambivalent. I believe in procuring freedom for people (every one deserves freedom) but only if they want it from us. There are many Iraqis that were and are happy to have us there, but there are just as many who thank us and want us to leave. As far as insurgencies and hatred between groups within Iraq I personally believe that we can no more change their beliefs and create peace than we are able to with the Palestinians and Israelis. Of course this is all personal opinion based off of the information brought back to me from fellow sailors and soldiers just returning from Iraq or who email me from their station abroad.

I did notice that you stated you would only kill to defend life itself. To this I say:
"...give me liberty or give me death!" -Patrick Henry

Druidus · Jan 27, 2005

Life without liberty is not life, Andra. I would fight for liberty, but make it true liberty.

Valjean · Jan 27, 2005

Andra130 said:
The "list" is definitely an interesting topic of conversation, but I have a question to those engaged in this thread... how many of you have served in the military?? Not to criticize, but how can we disparage those who dont serve if we dont serve ourselves??

I've never mugged or raped anyone, but I feel free to disparage muggers and rapists.

One does not have to have engaged in a morally reprehensible act to condemn one.

Andra130 · Jan 27, 2005

Seyorni said:
I've never mugged or raped anyone, but I feel free to disparage muggers and rapists.

One does not have to have engaged in a morally reprehensible act to condemn one.

Whoa!
Did you just compare me to a mugger and a rapist?? Or are you referring to those in congress? I really do not see how military service is morally rehrensible...

Feathers in Hair · Jan 27, 2005

Andra130 said:
Whoa!
Did you just compare me to a mugger and a rapist?? Or are you referring to those in congress? I really do not see how military service is morally rehrensible...

Just to butt in, I don't think he was. I think he was just making a general point.

I think you are quite right in your question, though. I have not served in the military, nor could I see myself doing so. I admire anyone who can do so, just as much as I honor all humans, and it is not their service that I find reprehensible, it is the actions of those who would have them serve in a war they might not support.

I cannot imagine the horrors of war. (Although, with my empathic nature, I can come close.) That's why I don't disparage those that are serving, or have served (again, I honor them) so much as those who would send them into that environment if they have not lived it themselves. Even if they have lived it themselves, everyone is an individual, and war strikes them differently.

Andra130 · Jan 27, 2005

FeathersinHair said:
Just to butt in, I don't think he was. I think he was just making a general point.

I think you are quite right in your question, though. I have not served in the military, nor could I see myself doing so. I admire anyone who can do so, just as much as I honor all humans, and it is not their service that I find reprehensible, it is the actions of those who would have them serve in a war they might not support.

I cannot imagine the horrors of war. (Although, with my empathic nature, I can come close.) That's why I don't disparage those that are serving, or have served (again, I honor them) so much as those who would send them into that environment if they have not lived it themselves. Even if they have lived it themselves, everyone is an individual, and war strikes them differently.

Thanks Feathers, I just wanted to find out if that is how others feel. I am the same way. And it may be even more important (to me at least) not of the prior service of the congressman but perhaps whether or not that individual has sons or daughters serving.... but how many of either Reps or Dems do??

Valjean · Jan 27, 2005

Apologies Andra. I was in no way disparaging you. I was just challenging your assertion that we cannot legitimately criticize an organization that we have not been a member of.

Andra130 · Jan 27, 2005

Seyorni said:
Apologies Andra. I was in no way disparaging you. I was just challenging your assertion that we cannot legitimately criticize an organization that we have not been a member of.

I understand. I simply wanted to make the assertion that we should probably not disparage those in our congress who did not serve in the military if we did not. But I can see your point

Another thing to consider is that our congressmen are given more information then the rest of the public in order to make decisions concerning war, after all it was the American public who voted them into those positions to make those decisions.

Jayhawker Soule · Jan 27, 2005

FeathersinHair said:
Andra130 said:

Seyorni said:

I've never mugged or raped anyone, but I feel free to disparage muggers and rapists.
One does not have to have engaged in a morally reprehensible act to condemn one.

Click to expand...

Whoa! Did you just compare me to a mugger and a rapist??

Click to expand...

Just to butt in, I don't think he was. I think he was just making a general point.

Seyorni is perfectly capable of defending himself/herself, but I read it as a comment on Andra130's tu quoque ad hominem - functionally the same ad hominem employed against anti-war activists during Viet Nam. It is simply fallacious to argue "Not to criticize [sic], but how can we disparage those who dont serve if we dont serve ourselves??" If the stance of some congressman warrants disparragement, it warrants disparagement irrespective of anything Seyorni, Andra130, you or I might have done or not done.

lilithu · Jan 27, 2005

Druidus said:
I would not be in the military, because I cannot kill unless defending life itself. One could argue that I am protecting life, the life of our soldiers, however, they willingly choose to kill and have the chance to be killed, unless they are drafted.

Sometimes the choice is less "willing" than you think. I attend a very anti-war church, but recently our receptionist, a neighborhood girl who just turned 18, enlisted in the marines. It wasn't because she decided that she was willing to kill people for her country. It's because she had no money, no family, no immediate opportunity for education, and was tired of living in a place with rats and no heat. She didn't see any options for herself and the recruiter was telling her that she could go to college if she served for a couple of years. This wasn't a "choice" from her perspective, the way that most of us here would think of choices.

FeathersinHair said:
I have not served in the military, nor could I see myself doing so. I admire anyone who can do so, just as much as I honor all humans, and it is not their service that I find reprehensible, it is the actions of those who would have them serve in a war they might not support.

Thanks feathers; you said that so beautifully.

I would add that from my perspective, I can understand why the soldier does not have the option to "support" or not support a war. Despite my own inability to follow rules, I appreciate that there must be a chain of command for a military to function properly. But one would think that the guys up top would at least have a good reason, would appreciate the scope of what they're requiring of these people, and take the responsiblity of that decision seriously.

Deut. 32.8 said:
Seyorni is perfectly capable of defending himself/herself, but I read it as a comment on Andra130's tu quoque ad hominem - functionally the same ad hominem employed against anti-war activists during Viet Nam. It is simply fallacious to argue "Not to criticize [sic], but how can we disparage those who dont serve if we dont serve ourselves??" If the stance of some congressman warrants disparragement, it warrants disparagement irrespective of anything Seyorni, Andra130, you or I might have done or not done.

Andra is perfectly capable of defending herself/himself, but I read Andra's comment not as an attempt at a logical argument against criticism, but as an appeal to empathy. Instead of pointing fingers at the other side let's take a minute to examine whether we could live up to the ideals that we're requiring of others. And have we taken their circumstances, which may be different than our own, into account. If one honestly decides that one can and has, then of course one can criticize. Hell, one can criticize no matter what, as most of us show each day, including myself. But that's all that I thought Andra was saying.

Valjean · Jan 27, 2005

"It wasn't because she decided she was willing to kill people for her country. It's because she had no money, no family, no immediate opportunity for education...."

Yet even if she gains the whole world, she looses her soul. This is, indeed, an odd choice for a religious person.

Jayhawker Soule · Jan 27, 2005

lilithu said:
Instead of pointing fingers at the other side let's take a minute to examine whether we could live up to the ideals that we're requiring of others. And have we taken their circumstances, which may be different than our own, into account.

The issue posed by the thread is not whether some congressman/senator is brave enough or patriotic enough to serve in the armed forces but, rather, whether a political party "walks its talk". With all due respect (and I do respect you), to the extent that a party does not act in a manner consonant with its stated principles, I feel absolutely no compulsion to empathize with political hypocrisy on the part of my political leadership.

lilithu · Jan 27, 2005

Seyorni said:
"It wasn't because she decided she was willing to kill people for her country. It's because she had no money, no family, no immediate opportunity for education...."

Yet even if she gains the whole world, she looses her soul. This is, indeed, an odd choice for a religious person.

I understand what you are saying. Personally, I'd like to believe that I would not kill even in self-defense. I believe that if one is forced to make that choice, it is better to preserve the soul than the body.

But I can't condemn her. The whole situation was just sad.

lilithu · Jan 27, 2005

Deut. 32.8 said:
The issue posed by the thread is not whether some congressman/senator is brave enough or patriotic enough to serve in the armed forces but, rather, whether a political party "walks its talk". With all due respect (and I do respect you), to the extent that a party does not act in a manner consonant with its stated principles, I feel absolutely no compulsion to empathize with political hypocrisy on the part of my political leadership.

I agree with you. (tho I am confused since I thought that you were questioning the validity of the original post.) I had kind of moved on in thought from political leaders to the question of individual citizens and how we choose to serve or not to serve. But you are right, my mind had wandered off the topic.

(The respect is mutual, btw. In fact, I'm honored.)

Jayhawker Soule · Jan 27, 2005

lilithu said:
(tho I am confused since I thought that you were questioning the validity of the original post.)

But not the issue.

If the polemic is legitimate it deserves to be pursued with integrity, not insinuated via consciously slanted statistics. But my irritation with the methodology of the OP does not mean that I should accept fallacious opposing arguments/observations.

Who's Patriotic Now?

Mr

The Devil's Advocate

Member

Member

Keeper of the Grove

Member

Keeper of the Grove

Veteran Member

Member

World's Tallest Hobbit

Member

Veteran Member

Member

-- untitled --

The Devil's Advocate

Veteran Member

-- untitled --

The Devil's Advocate

The Devil's Advocate

-- untitled --