If support then why not serve? - Page 3

Kerostasis · 07-31-2007, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMosely

Then so is the debate.

I don't need to add anything to that. It stands pretty well on its own.

(yes, I am aware of the irony of taking a post to say I'm not saying anything...)

**CingularDuality** · 07-31-2007, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

I think there is a basic hypocrisy in advocating military action, particularly if you believe it to be the most important conflict of our age, and then not volunteering to put one's own life and well being on the line in support of that conflict, particularly if you are of an age and physical ability to do so.

I completely disagree with this. For many people, there are much better ways to serve their country than by grabbing a rifle, and choosing to serve one's country in another way shouldn't exclude them from being able to support one position or another without hypocrisy.

Then again, maybe Heinlein was on to something... I still grapple with the concept of citizenship only being granted to those that have served in the Armed Forces. It does have a certain appeal...

**USN_Squid** · 07-31-2007, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFatKidDeath

This generally sums up my feelings on the matter:

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=15964

Yes, I see your point. I'm sorry your application to join your local police force was turned down. You are against crime and believe in arresting criminals don't you?

I imagine that you take the opinions on war from those in the Military as very credible then? Certainly your respect for military opinion and service has led you to read blogs and news from those currently serving and ex-military embedded with, or writing on the war right? Just in case you missed some try these:

Michael Yon
Blackfive
Froggy Ruminations
Austin Bay
Mudville Gazette

Diceman · 07-31-2007, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

I completely disagree with this. For many people, there are much better ways to serve their country than by grabbing a rifle, and choosing to serve one's country in another way shouldn't exclude them from being able to support one position or another without hypocrisy.

Let's take this discussion out of the general context ("Serve one's country") and into a specific conflict ("Win in Iraq"). Recall that the hawks are not advocating that people specifically "serve their country", they are advocating the maintenance of the mission in Iraq. Likewise, the doves are not advocating that people "abandon their country", their position is that Iraq should be withdrawn from.

So, bearing in mind that the "serving" we are talking about is the sort that aids the specific goal of winning in Iraq, what sorts of ways then exist to serve, beyond joining the Armed Forces (or CIA, or the State Department, or a contractor providing services to these a similar entities) in some capacity?

A further question is one which considers whether or not it is hypocritical to not provide material support to a war, when it is within one's ability to do and when the person already morally supports the war. I should note that material support should be considered something having a more direct impact than paying taxes or supporting the economy; it should be something tangible that those who don't support the war would not do. One last comment is that this question is similar, but not identical to FatCobra's original query. My variant has the added qualification of material support being within one's ability - this immediately exonerates any who would serve but cannot, for whatever reason.

**Gillespie** · 08-01-2007, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ferris Bueller

Either way, next time you talk to someone who serves, regardless of whether or not they've been to iraq, whether or not you agree with the war, whether or not you even like the military, thank them.

Or, in my case, when you discover that I'm in the military and have served overseas, just say, "Wow, that's cool, dude."

I'll understand your sentiment and it'll make me feel a hell of a lot less awkward than responding to a heartfelt "thank you".

Not being ungrateful for the support, it just makes me uncomfortable to hear the gratitude. A simple, wordless handshake is good enough for me.

**CingularDuality** · 08-01-2007, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diceman

Let's take this discussion out of the general context ("Serve one's country") and into a specific conflict ("Win in Iraq"). Recall that the hawks are not advocating that people specifically "serve their country", they are advocating the maintenance of the mission in Iraq. Likewise, the doves are not advocating that people "abandon their country", their position is that Iraq should be withdrawn from.

But that's just wrong. Like it our not, our country has chosen a particular path. Winning in Iraq IS supporting our country as long as our country continues along that path. That's not to say that anyone that disagrees with the war is advocating abandoning their country.

Can we keep our apples and oranges separate, please?

**CingularDuality** · 08-01-2007, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gillespie

Or, in my case, when you discover that I'm in the military and have served overseas, just say, "Wow, that's cool, dude."

I'll understand your sentiment and it'll make me feel a hell of a lot less awkward than responding to a heartfelt "thank you".

Not being ungrateful for the support, it just makes me uncomfortable to hear the gratitude. A simple, wordless handshake is good enough for me.

I bet you wouldn't turn down a cold beer either?

Diceman · 08-01-2007, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

But that's just wrong. Like it our not, our country has chosen a particular path. Winning in Iraq IS supporting our country as long as our country continues along that path. That's not to say that anyone that disagrees with the war is advocating abandoning their country.

Can we keep our apples and oranges separate, please?

I am keeping them separate, and the separation is in the distinction that I've made.

Winning in Iraq is the policy position of the hawks. I believe various rhetorical conflicts affecting those who have served or are serving over the past few years have shown this to be abundantly clear. A few examples include:

The swift boating of John Kerry
The counter resolution (H.Res. 571) made by Duncan Hunter in response to John Murtha's statement that the US should work towards an over-the-horizon presence in Iraq and Jean Schimdt calling Murtha a coward.
The rhetorical frame of "Stay the Course" versus "Cut and Run"
The treatment by Bill O'Reilly of a US Army Colonel when she wasn't saying what he wanted her to say
The act of and subsequent minimization of the leaking Valerie Plame's covert status.
The claim that dissent on stated Iraq policy "emboldens the enemy".

If the hawks' position really was as benign as the moral imperative to serve one's country, I would not expect Iraq War dissenters who have served in the forces to be treated with such opprobrium. I would also expect a stronger sense of national outrage at every turn where life is made harder than it must be for those in harm's way (examples include repeatedly extended combat tours, insufficient equipment, the state of dilapidation at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the resistance by the administration to allow for pay raises that merely match inflation, etc).

That is why it is keeping the "apples and oranges" separate to make the distinction between serving one's country and winning in Iraq: because they are two separate positions. There are certainly people who strongly and faithfully advocate both positions - to win in Iraq and to serve one's country - and they have my respect. But it is important to note that neither stance necessitates the other, just as it must be recognized that many people appear to pay nothing more than lip-service to the concept of service.

All that being said, let me go back to my questions:

What sorts of ways exist to materially support the goal of winning in Iraq, outside of joining the military, the intelligence community or the diplomatic service (or the contractors to these groups)?
Is it hypocritical to morally support a war and simultaneously with-hold material support when it is within one's ability to provide the material support?

**CingularDuality** · 08-01-2007, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diceman

All that being said, let me go back to my questions:

What sorts of ways exist to materially support the goal of winning in Iraq, outside of joining the military, the intelligence community or the diplomatic service (or the contractors to these groups)?
Is it hypocritical to morally support a war and simultaneously with-hold material support when it is within one's ability to provide the material support?

Man, you'll use any excuse, even if it's irrelevant to the discussion, to attack "the right", won't you?

Anyway, let's get to your questions. Support doesn't have to be direct and/or exclusive of other efforts. Nor does it have to be material. You're attempting to frame these arguments to suit you, and are failing miserably.

TheFatKidDeath · 08-01-2007, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by USN_Squid

Yes, I see your point. I'm sorry your application to join your local police force was turned down. You are against crime and believe in arresting criminals don't you?

I imagine that you take the opinions on war from those in the Military as very credible then? Certainly your respect for military opinion and service has led you to read blogs and news from those currently serving and ex-military embedded with, or writing on the war right? Just in case you missed some try these:

Michael Yon
Blackfive
Froggy Ruminations
Austin Bay
Mudville Gazette

Comparing those internet warriors who sit behind a computer cheerleading for a foreign war without suffering any personal consquences and those civilians who support their local police force is a misleading and false analogy.

Some of the most vocal proponents of this disaster called Iraq have never served in the armed forces. I'd better be shown damn compelling evidence before I ask someone to go die for me or my country. I'm still waiting to see that evidence on Iraq.

I agree with the majority opinion of those currently serving in the military:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

Now, that's an old poll. I'd be curious to see where those numbers stand now.

Kerostasis · 08-01-2007, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diceman

What sorts of ways exist to materially support the goal of winning in Iraq, outside of joining the military, the intelligence community or the diplomatic service (or the contractors to these groups)?
Is it hypocritical to morally support a war and simultaneously with-hold material support when it is within one's ability to provide the material support?

No comment on 1. On point 2, allow me to answer by presenting a parallel situation.

Would anyone here fail to morally support my ability to feed myself, and avoid starving? I doubt it. Yet I do not hold you guys hypocritical for failing to provide material support towards my sustenance, and certainly many of you would have the ability to do so. Why not?

You could probably go into more detail on that question than we need to here, but let me offer a simple answer: If you do not pay for my food, I will not starve, because I already possess the means to pay for my own food. Therefore you feel no call to help feed me. If your financial support would make the difference between me living and dying tonight, and you still wouldn't help out, then I would call into question your "moral support" for my continued sustenance.

To apply this analogy to the military: If our military was on the verge of failure, and my material support was needed to preserve the chances of success, then you could legitemately question my "moral support" for the military when I failed to provide material support. But since the military's material position (drawn in no small part from the taxes that you and I both pay) is already sufficient to offer reasonable chances of victory, it is no more hypocritical of me to decline additional material support than it is hypocritical of you not to pay for my dinner tonight.

Steeler · 08-01-2007, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

To apply this analogy to the military: If our military was on the verge of failure, and my material support was needed to preserve the chances of success, then you could legitemately question my "moral support" for the military when I failed to provide material support. But since the military's material position (drawn in no small part from the taxes that you and I both pay) is already sufficient to offer reasonable chances of victory, it is no more hypocritical of me to decline additional material support than it is hypocritical of you not to pay for my dinner tonight.

If I believed, and stated loudly in public, that you were on the verge of starvation, that if someone didn't do something RIGHT NOW, you would collapse in a rickety heap - if I believed those things, and then chose not to send you a care package, not to alert the local paramedics, not to drive to your house with a pastrami sandwich, but to instead write an opinion column urging someone else to go do one of those things, then yes, that would make me a hypocrite. Even if you were not really on the verge of death but were rather kind of hungry and didn't have cash for a burger, if I still believe you to be in mortal peril and choose to do the lazy thing, that counts against me. At the very least it makes me an exaggerator and a demagogue.

I don't mean to include anyone specific to TG in this, but there has been a loud and urgent group of people crowing that we are faced with the greatest threat to democracy in history - the Muslim Menace, the Islamofascists! Now, if these people can find the time to post on LGF and NRO, and all the other places people go to vent, and if they can find the time to berate anyone who disagrees with them as America-hating appeasers - if they blindly support the war because they think it nothing less than the greatest clash of civilizations in our lifetime, and they don't give any kind of material support to that clash, then they are hypocrites.

If one invests that kind of emotional and philosophical weight to an enterprise and then exerts the minimal effort possible to support it, then one is full of s***. I have no time for that kind of person.

That (and that alone) is the kind of person I apply the "join up or shut up" meme to.

FatCobra · 08-01-2007, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheFatKidDeath

Comparing those internet warriors who sit behind a computer cheerleading for a foreign war without suffering any personal consquences and those civilians who support their local police force is a misleading and false analogy.

Some of the most vocal proponents of this disaster called Iraq have never served in the armed forces. I'd better be shown damn compelling evidence before I ask someone to go die for me or my country. I'm still waiting to see that evidence on Iraq.

I agree with the majority opinion of those currently serving in the military:

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

Now, that's an old poll. I'd be curious to see where those numbers stand now.

I'm not discrediting that poll, but anyone could slap a poll on a website and say that it's true. It's not really fair to use a poll to show what the military thinks, or anything else for that matter.

Kerostasis · 08-01-2007, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

If I believed, and stated loudly in public, that you were on the verge of starvation, that if someone didn't do something RIGHT NOW, you would collapse in a rickety heap - if I believed those things, and then chose not to send you a care package, not to alert the local paramedics, not to drive to your house with a pastrami sandwich, but to instead write an opinion column urging someone else to go do one of those things, then yes, that would make me a hypocrite. Even if you were not really on the verge of death but were rather kind of hungry and didn't have cash for a burger, if I still believe you to be in mortal peril and choose to do the lazy thing, that counts against me. At the very least it makes me an exaggerator and a demagogue.

I don't mean to include anyone specific to TG in this, but there has been a loud and urgent group of people crowing that we are faced with the greatest threat to democracy in history - the Muslim Menace, the Islamofascists! Now, if these people can find the time to post on LGF and NRO, and all the other places people go to vent, and if they can find the time to berate anyone who disagrees with them as America-hating appeasers - if they blindly support the war because they think it nothing less than the greatest clash of civilizations in our lifetime, and they don't give any kind of material support to that clash, then they are hypocrites.

If one invests that kind of emotional and philosophical weight to an enterprise and then exerts the minimal effort possible to support it, then one is full of s***. I have no time for that kind of person.

That (and that alone) is the kind of person I apply the "join up or shut up" meme to.

I suggest that you have confused probability of success with importance of success. I firmly believe that success in Iraq is extremely important, but I also believe that it is fairly probable. I further believe that that probability will not be altered in any way by the material support that I personally can offer.

It can, however, be significantly altered by political decisions such as "withdrawing the troops". Since the impact of these political decisions far outweighs the material contributions of any individual citizen, there is no reason to dismiss participation in the political process as being less worthy than material contribution.

Steeler · 08-01-2007, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

I suggest that you have confused probability of success with importance of success.

I don't see how you would think I'm conflating the two. I will say that the standards for "success" are so shifting and dependent on one's personal politics that judging both the importance and probability of it is entirely subjective.

There is also the added wrinkle of determining whether or not the current path we take is actually getting us closer to your definition of success. It is possible to believe that a form of success is possible in Iraq AND that withdrawing troops is the wisest course of action to achieving that success.

But regardless, my main concern is the disconnect between a person's stated beliefs and perceptions and how that person acts in response to them. That is how you determine hypocrisy.

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links