For quite some time now, I've wrestled mentally with the matter of speaking out against the war versus "supporting our troops." I've finally managed to see a clear distinction that I hope may be helpful to both supporting patriots and dissenting patriots. Free of charge, of course, here it is for any clarity that it may supply to your thinking and opinion (I assume that you think before you opine, of course!):

On the positive side -- Now that we're engaged in the war, vocal support (irrespective of supportive reasons for it) supplies vitality to the morale of the fellows over there doing the dirty work and living with the dirty conditions and memories. Therefore, expressions of support provide a positive effect on their morale without affecting the decision to wage war.

On the negative side -- Now that we're engaged in the war, expressions of opposition (irrespective of supportive reasons for it) sap the morale of the fellows over there doing the dirty work and living with the dirty conditions and memories. Therefore, negative opinion has a negative effect on their morale without affecting the decision to wage war.

Under the present circumstances -- the war as a fait accompli -- support for it doesn't decide whether we engage in war, but it does show, in ways that strengthen our troops personally, our appreciation for them.

OTOH, holding forth against it -- especially with allegations of despicable ulterior motives -- has no positive or beneficial effect that I can see, on either the war or our warriors. The only effects that I see are all favorable to the enemy and his warriors -- encouraging the other side, discouraging our guys. I can not see how that's patriotic, no matter how loudly the dissidents squall their claims to patriotism.

Having said all that, I must add that it's obvious to me that many dissidents start with opposition and then look around for "reasons." One of my good friends on the left coast is a very logical man when he's dealing with technical facts -- won't form or accept a conclusion until he knows all the data and sees how they fall into sense. But his opposition to the President and the Administration (not just the war) is the benchmark from which he looks all around for reasons to oppose and dissent. Good logic would have him base his dissent on reasons, not derive his "reasons" from his congenital hatred. I see his method of finding "reasons" very obvious in much of the dissidents' arguments against the war. As one addicted to logic, I find this an appalling abdication from applied thinking. It's also clearly why they can not be swayed by clear logic that leads to conclusions that don't match the opinions that for one reason or another they find politically tasty.

Yes, I agree that our God-given, constitutionally guaranteed right to speak freely includes dissidents' right to dissent in this matter as in any other. I see no way that the right to speak freely is relevant to this issue. What we face is a matter of using good judgement, not a matter of the right to speak. He who speaks is responsible for using his judgement. I'm for using it wisely, especially when it favors silence over decibels and heat.

Some of this, and us is/are over the edge. Look at what Y'all are writing and how it sounds. Threats and counter threats over something we, as citizens, no longer have any control over. The war is a runaway freight train that ain't gonna stop till it gets to the end of the line! Give it a rest and worry about the troops on the line, they are the ones that count at this point. I really hope they don't have to go through what my brothers, and yes, sisters went through, in and after Vietnam. It is not pretty and can have you near the edge far easier than you might think. Bless these people for doing their job for you and I. The politicians, well the hell with them, it's too late in the game to worry now. Just support those on the sharp end of the spear and pray for the safe return of as many as possible.

Then vote your true feelings in the next election! I don't care how you vote, just DO IT!

Ken,

I think that there is distinction between patriotism and anti-americanism and dissidence.


I am probably the most hawkish member on the board or else I am tied for that position.

However, there are those (mistakenly so) that oppose the war because of

1. I dont think we gave the U.N. enough time.
or
2. I just dont believe in war.
or
3. I dont think that the U.S. has legal justification for attackin Iraq.

I can even think of a few other incorrect but viable reasons for not supporting the concept of war with Iraq.

People that have true convictions of these opinions and speak of them are not un-patriotic or anti-american in my opinion. The do have a right to these opinions and are truly concerned about the U.S.

On the other hand there are those that have taken this conflict as an opportunity to say things such as ""'We're here, we're queer!' -- that's what makes my heart swell. Not the flag, but a gay naked man or woman burning the flag. I get choked up with pride."

-- Janeanne Garofalo"

Those are the things that I believe to be Anti-american and un-patriotic. Free speech is free speech and the constitution protects her right to say these things, but I just dont believe that statements such as these fall under the banner of good taste or what a true american would say.


Jim B.

I just didn't make my point clear enough, I guess, Jim.

When going to war was still a "jump ball," then was the appropriate time to voice reasoned dissent. I have no problem with that.

When the war has become fait accompli, there's absolutely no way that opposition to it can prevent it. I don't mean to say that those who opposed it when it was still a "jump ball" should turn around and support it -- all I'm saying is that the opposition that theoretically could've averted it, before, has become of no positive value to anyone except the enemy and his supporters -- of whom, regrettably, we have so many feeding fat on our grub at our home tables. They had their nay say, which didn't carry -- so there's no way now that their opposition to the war can win them anything that their opposition implicitly continues to propose. Arguing against war that has already begun and is vigorously under way can not possibly prevent it from becoming a reality. All it can do (and does) is encourage the enemy while it discourages our own warriors. The clear motive of demeaning and discrediting our leaders does no one on our side any good. The alternative to vitriolic personal attack and condemnation doesn't have to suddenly become approval -- a still tongue in a closed mouth is a pretty good alternative when nothing that tongue can say stands any chance of producing a positive or desirable effect.

There's a Hell of a difference between honest pacifists and those who simply hate the Americans who are dealing with the threats of war, despotism, and terrorism.

I dunno, Dr. Howell. I too have some reservations about this war. Serving in the USMC from 69-73, i felt lots of the vitriole first hand. However, i do wonder how much longer the"War" would have lasted if many of the good folks at home would have acquiesced.
I am truly afraid that we have opened the proverbial "can of worms."

I have to wonder if some"peoples" in certain parts of the world just can't handle freedom;much less anything that approaches a democracy. Seems that some might be happier when they are ruled with an iron fist or when constantly whipped into a Jihadic freenzy.

I don't think many of us can begin to understand the Arab mind. Their history-their religion....

We've had 30 years now to do something about our energy dependency. And haven't. This dependency has led us to sleep with some very unsavory fellows.And the sheets stink.

I support our troops 100%. But i think they are going to need our support for a very long time on this one. Regards......

Ken


Please understand that what I am about to say are MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS AND DO NOT IN ANY WAY, MANNER, OR FASHION imply that yours are wrong.


I am a believer in supporting the military in any and all ways. I believe in supporting the individual soldier or airman or marine or sailor or coast guardsman, or ........... in every way possible. I am dedicated to the concept that there is not a more noble or honorable position than to wear the Uniform of The United States of America. Period.


Now comes the fun part....


I supported the concept of going to war with Iraq before hostilities actually occured. I supported the concept before we ever went to the U.N. I believe in the purpose of the war.

However to hear the people that espouse

1. The war is unjust.
2. Give the U.N. more time.
3. It is unethical to kill Iraqis for the reasons given.
4. War is in any event a bad solution.

to

5. America is evil for killing Iraqis
6. I spit on the Flag.
7. I am glad that I could come here (Spain) for a breathe of fresh air because the air in America is stifling.
8. I am ashamed of my president.
9. My president is a racist.
10. I wish for the Iraqis to kill all of us americans.
11. I wish for a million mogadishu's.



turn to "I dont support the war but I do support the troops" is a tad hypocritical to me. Especially the ones that fall into categories 5 - 11.
To ME, it says. I believe that you are going over to do an unjust thing, no amount of arguement has changed my mind on the idea that it is the right thing to do. It is not the right thing to do but since public opinion would be so bad for me I will do a "I support the troops", lip service and still let the troops know that I dissaprove of the mission that they are going on. How can you look a PFC in southern Iraq with mud in his teeth and some dipstick shooting at him and say, "I dont approve of the mission you are on but please know that I "support the troops.""? If you cant support the mission then you cannot be supporting the lowly little grunt with the rifle in his hand. And these folks know it.


Besides, what does "I support the troops" mean.


Then next time you hear someone spew the that line, ask them this.

"How do you support the troops in general, and specifically, what exactly have you done in the last week to put action to your words. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE TO SUPPORT A SINGLE AND SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL SERVING IN OUR ARMED FORCES?"



"I support the troops" from a staunch anti-war or worse yet a staunch anti-american is the moral equivilant of my mother making me "apologize" to my brother for kicking him in the shin one afternoon. I said "I am sorry, Mike" but I did not mean it. I had no remorse for kicking him. He KNEW without a doubt that I did not mean it and furthermore he knew that the "apology" was coerced in that "If you dont apologize there will be hell to pay". While she was swinging the switch in her hand.


Sorry for getting on a soapbox and ranting. This is one of my hot buttons.

Jim B.

Ken, I'm starting to feel some of the most dissident people. Are our own millitary. Starting to see more and more getting on the news, telling why were not fighting this war properly. Some retired, some still active. Don't know if their jeolous, have feud's going with those in command posistions, or are just idiot's. Rank doesn't seem to have anything to do with it. CNN has a retired Colonel who just doesn't seem to think this administration has done anything properly. Kind of makes you wonder why he only made colonel. Kind of like "Paid Expert Wittneses" in a trial. You see Captains, Sargents, heck I'm waiting for an expert opinion from one of CNN's recently retired Private's.

Phil

You guys are starting to confuse me.

I had thought that all the dissidents causing the dissidence were dis' DENSE!

The whole point is that some of us had our say before it started, I for one now keep it to myself and send care pkgs and notes of appreciation. I have been in the position these people are in. I will not say one dispariging word to them or their family's nor do I dis my gov't. I do vote, and will vote my concience when election time rolls around. And that will be between me and the voting machine.

I support em, I have a nephew somewhere over there (only contact is re-routed email) and several aquaintiances are headed that way. Time for the BS is over and we need to let em know they are number one in our book and pray for a speedy and safe return. Nothing less will do now that we a committed!

Jim B,
I think you get a little confused in the messages out there. If I say that I think the diplomacy should have been given more of a chance, that doesn't mean I don't support our troops. I think all the ultra conservatives are as wrong about the war as are the ultra liberals. I know I will probably get alot of flak for saying it but it is true.

The lack of diplomacy by Bush and Chirac made this war a foregone conclusion. The blame lies at both of their feet. Could the war have been avoided through better diplomacy? I don't know. Probably not. But war should be the last alternative after every available option has been tried. Between Bush's insistence on going to war and Chirac's insistence on vetoing any provisions for severe consequences for Iraq, the chance for peace was lost. Now our troops are dying for it.

So if I believe that Bush has failings in his foreign policy, it means I don't support our troops? Then I guess everyone who bashes Clinton is more un-American (as determined by your own standards), alot more un-American, than me.

Well, in my case, it means that I respect their talent, ability, and professionalism, and that I pray for them to come home safely and soon. That's about as far as it can go.

But I cannot claim to support their mission, or to think that they're bending that talent, ability, and professionalism to the proper end.

How can I explain it? Let me try it this way.

We all know (hopefully) that it is the nature of governments to become bigger and more powerful and more oppressive as time goes on. Some become that way quickly, some take centuries; but no government willingly becomes smaller and less powerful and gives liberty back to its people.

Our government is one of the ones that has been becoming bigger and more oppressive for centuries (although mostly since 1912). Every week there's a new liberty it wants to take away. If we can't be shamed into giving up rights "for the chillllldren," then those rights are forcibly taken away on behalf of the War On Drugs. Even the War On Drugs has apparently pretty much served out its usefulness in that regard, so now we have the War On Terror, which gave us the USA PATRIOT Act and the Department of Fatherland Security. (Extra credit: under which branch of government does the Constitutional prescription for the security of a free state fall? Think about it.)

So far so good. The fly in the ointment is that an armed citizenry can be peacefully oppressed only so far as it is willing to allow itself to be oppressed. Eventually, the government is going to need lots more men with guns to oppress us than it has now--and bigger guns. Toward that end, Baby Bush has for some time now been trying to get the Posse Comitatus Act--which, as I hope most of you know already, prohibits the use of US military forces against American citizens on American soil--abolished. (There's already a chink in the PCA that allows use of military equipment in the War On Drugs--which is why the FBI had to claim the Branch Davidians had a meth lab in order to get armored vehicles from the Army. That's not enough for Baby Bush, though: he wants to eliminate the whole thing.)

When that happens, all that ability and talent and professionalism in the US military is going to be aimed at me. (If the War On Terror hasn't been superseded by something that's even more efficient at destroying American liberty by that point, I'm sure I'll long since have been defined as a terrorist by then, because I'll own militia weapons that I won't have surrendered.)

And at long last, we come around the mulberry tree to the reason my support of the troops must have its limits. If the people in the military can't see that its mission in Iraq is in direct contravention of the Constitution it swore to uphold and defend, then I can have no confidence that they will see anything wrong with similar orders to come get me and other Americans like me. And I think it's a little presumptuous of all and sundry to expect me to offer unquestioning support to the very people whom I fear may one day try to kill me and my family.

For my money, the time for dissidence is past. We are at war and American

youth are dieing. They are dieing because the politicians we elected are

responsible for them being there and being in the situations they find

themselves. Whether we believe in the reasons for being there is now

irrelevant. Many are the feeling and my beliefs concerning war. If one has

been on the receiving end of war instead of a platitude of beliefs they will not

ever want war for themselves or others.

But the most dispicable thing that this country has ever done was not support

our troops from the VN war. But the most dispicable thing beyond that was

our own lack of support was not making a bunch of professional politicians do

their duty to those willing to support our policies, right or wrong. I, for this

reason don't trust any politician for any reason. I'm sorry to say that I

don't trust our nation. As a politician's goal in life to to stay in Washington,

we could control this situation. God help us if we let them play this dispicable

game of monopoly or chess with the lives of our youth.

The southern difinition of trash describes (in my opinion) those who will not

support someone who is doing that which we ask of them.

Oh well, I've done it again. My wife would say that part of our culture is the

right to believe as we wish. She is right, so I have stated my beliefs.

However she would mean for me to keep my opinions to my self.

I'm not completely sure of all the details of what you mean, Eddie. I can't tell if the following addresses you or not; if it doesn't, just imagine me talking over your shoulder to the folks behind you.

I've never been in the standing military, only in the militia. Can somebody who has been in the standing military explain to me what the big deal is about supporting the troops? I mean, they're professionals with a job to do, right? I don't mean to offend anybody, but if they are professionals, should our support really matter to them?

For example: I'm a professional software developer. I'm paid to do a job too. (One difference is that I'm compensated with money that somebody willingly chose to pay me in exchange for the exercise of my talents, rather than with money that was forcibly extorted from people by a government agency whether or not those people advocated that particular use of the money; that may or may not be relevant here.) How many of you folks support me? Have any of you sent me care packages or mail expressing your hopes and encouragement that I'll be able to bear up under the stress of my job and overcome its obstacles?

Not as far as I know, and I kind of like it that way. If I got a care package in the mail, I'd be a little disturbed and suspicious. (Unless it contained a box of Padron 3000 Maduro or Partagas Black Label Clasico cigars, of course.) I'm a professional: I do the job that I'm paid to do, regardless of my morale. And anyway, my morale generally has nothing to do with current public opinion of software developers: it has more to do with my current state of health, my relationships with my wife and kids, whether I got to go shooting last weekend, whether I'll be flying later in the day--stuff like that.

So what is the essential difference between a professional soldier (paid by extortion) and a professional software developer (paid by choice) that makes it necessary to say nice things about the soldier and send him gifts lest he be unable to do his job, but the software developer (and, I suspect, the plumber, bus driver, executive, banker, electrician, scientist, etc.) is expected to do a professional job without compliments and gifts from the public at large?

I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't say nice things about our soldiers or that we shouldn't send them gifts: those are good things to do. But I'm wondering why everyone so automatically agrees that it is not just a good thing but a necessary thing--not just a necessary thing, but a crucial thing--to make it possible for said soldiers to do the jobs they're given.

" ... MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS ... DO NOT IN ANY WAY, MANNER, OR FASHION imply that yours are wrong."

Your disclaimer, AFAIC, is unnecessary -- in part because I see nothing in your stated views that I disagree with.

Barak

You said

"For example: I'm a professional software developer. I'm paid to do a job too. (One difference is that I'm compensated with money that somebody willingly chose to pay me in exchange for the exercise of my talents, rather than with money that was forcibly extorted from people by a government agency whether or not those people advocated that particular use of the money; that may or may not be relevant here.) How many of you folks support me? Have any of you sent me care packages or mail expressing your hopes and encouragement that I'll be able to bear up under the stress of my job and overcome its obstacles?

I dont believe your analogy is correct about you being a software engineer and the support that you get or dont get.

You are supported ultimately by those people that buy the software package that you provide for them. They no buy, your boss no pay wages.


However there is a great difference to me and to my country for the service that the professional soldier renders and your service to our country for producing wonderful software. That soldier defends with his life the freedom that I enjoy. You sir do not. I am not making light of you or being cavalier in my comment but you do not occupy a place on my totem pole at the same height as any active duty member of the armed service of the United States.

To support the troops to me does not mean " I hope that you are not injured or killed and wish you a speedy return."

I will let Mr. Webster help me with my definition of support.

2. To give courage, faith, or confidence to; help or comfort.
3. To give approval to or be in favor of; subscribe to; uphold.
4. To maintain or provide for ( a person or institution, etc) with money, or subsistance.

SYN. - support, the broadest of these terms, suggests a favoring of someone or something. , either by giving active aid or merely by approving or sanctioning [to support a candidate for office]; uphold suggests that what is being supported is under attack. [to uphold civil rights for all]; sustain implies full active support so as to strengthen or keep from failing [sustained by his hope for the future];


To support a person or group of persons means much much more than a neutral "I hope something bad does not befall you." Support means a very active stance AND ACTION to benefit that group that you claim to support.


There are negative, neutral, and positive actions and words for use. To be supportive means TO DO.

TO DO means to act.


In my own personal world, I cannot say that "I support " anything without being able to defend that action or person.




Second point to argue.

You also said

" But I'm wondering why everyone so automatically agrees that it is not just a good thing but a necessary thing--not just a necessary thing, but a crucial thing--to make it possible for said soldiers to do the jobs they're given.
"

Any person in any profession in this country from ditchdigger to brain surgeon to astronaut to toilet cleaner should be given the best tool within reason to accomplish the task of that person.

Secondly, the soldier is not just a ditchdigger and not only a brain surgeon. He is a person that has put himself in harms way for me and for you. He deserves the best that I can provide for him.

Third, why would you want anyone to give a task/mission to a soldier or the armed forces as a whole with the prior concept of "I know that this mission is in jeapordy because I have information/equipment that I choose not to give to the military unit that would greatly enhance the units effectiveness?


Fourthly, how would you feel as a soldier if your unit was given the task of securing a small town and the list of equipment available and usefull to the accomplishment of your task included, but not limited to, 4 Bradly vehicles, one M1A1 Tank, 5 APC's, 300 troops, a communications link to other combat units and the powers that be sent back a note for your request for this equipment that said. "We will give you one Bradley, no tanks, 2 apc's, 75 troops, and no comm gear. The rest is too pretty and we dont want you to have it. Carry on. "

How would you feel if your personal superior asked you to write code and provided you with computer with a Z80 for a processor, a 10 MB hard disk, one 360 K floppy, and a 5 1/2 inch amber mono monitor? Would you ask for better tools? Would you expect to get better tools? Why?

These tools are not even crucial for your survival today. They are not crucial for your survival this exact moment.



Jim B.

Barak

I do not intend to get into a match of definitions. This is simply my belief and each of us is allowed their own.

A professional soldier should be able to know that there is a end of a conflict upon which he will be able to stand down and feel a sense of accomplishment.
This is necessary for the sense of worth in any endeavor.

As you stated, you are a professional computer programer. Let us suppose that you are to write a program that will provide the final definition of pi. I was taught that there was no end figure and it must be used for a practical usage of the purpose needed. This is normally for practical usage no more than 4 or 5 places.

(1) You have a choice. Quit or do the assigned task.
(2) If it is impossible, then you would not get paid until the task was completed (no pay) or quit. In either case you failed.
(3) In the event you tried until you failed, your ability to continue on other tasks would be impared to some extent by this sense of failure.
(4) A series of these impossible tasks would destroy the ability to perform well at any similar task. Programing.

In reality there are few professional soldiers compared to those numbers in the field. Most of them are there because of some circumstance requireing some change or temporary hold in their lives.

It may be possible for me to write some programs. I could never be a professional compared to yourself. What little I know of these things seems to require an abstract thought. The hardest definition I had in my math and physics degree was infinity. I always thought in finites and somthing endless defied my imagination.

Whatever our challenges, we can quit. A soldier cannot. I pray that our freedoms are not dependent upon the actions of those that could even consider cheating our troops of a victory. If so, we won't have them long.
I prefer to think that those of your thought are only trying to kill time in trying to agitate others for some mental gymnastic exercise. Otherwise I could only pity them.

Sorry if I stepped on any toes, but there was once a radio program entitled
"This I Believe". And This I believe.

I will say no more on this subject, now or later.

I may understand you, but if I do then I'm surprised that someone like you would make the point that you're apparently making. So let me clarify what I understand to make sure that's what you intended to say.

I think you're saying that it should be clear to me that I have whatever support I need because there are people who value my work highly enough to be willing to pay me for it of their own free will: that the simple fact that they're willing to pay me money they could just as easily have spent elsewhere demonstrates that I have their support.

The troops, on the other hand, are paid with money that was plundered involuntarily at (implied) gunpoint by the government from Americans who had no choice whether to pay it or not, so the simple fact that the money keeps flowing is no guarantee that their work is actually valued by anyone other than politicians. Therefore, people who do value their work must find ways other than the free market to express their support if the troops are to comprehend it.

Is that what you meant to say?


Here we partially disagree. No soldier in Iraq is defending your freedom with his life. He's advancing Bush foreign policy, and incidentally Iraqi freedom, with his life. The situation would be different if that soldier were here on American soil defending Washington DC from an Iraqi attack. No, wait--bad example. (If Saddam were to wipe DC off the map, there's a good chance we'd all be more free, not less.) The situation would be different if that soldier were here on American soil defending the town where you live from an Iraqi attack.

To be perfectly honest and politically incorrect, actually, it is really I (as a member of the citizen militia) who comes a lot closer to defending your freedom with my life than any soldier in the US military. Given that we have no foreseeable serious threat of invasion and occupation from any nation in the world, the most significant threat to your freedom at the moment is not foreign regimes, but our own government. If push comes to shove in that area, it's going to be the US military that will be fighting on the government's side to take away your freedoms, and the militia that will be fighting against it to preserve them.

(You could make the argument that the reason there is no serious threat of foreign invasion is because of the US military. Granting that, the fact remains that the US government is encroaching on our freedoms, and foreign nations are not.)

Interestingly enough, though, it doesn't matter one whit to me whether I have your support or not in that mission. Perhaps that's because I pay my bills with my own money, rather than with money that's been stolen from you.


Well, that's all I can conscientiously mean by it. I'm sorry if you're not satisfied.


I'm sorry: I didn't properly explain my point, and you (undoubtedly accidentally) took a sentence out of context, which made the situation more confusing.

Of course I believe that people should be given what they require to do their job, or else they shouldn't be given the job in the first place; that's obvious.

I was simply asking why it seems to be universally accepted that one of those required supplies is gifts and compliments from the general public for professionals who are soldiers, but not for professionals who are...well, pretty much anything else.

OK guys, my last on this before I end up in a rubber room.
The dreams are back, I wake up five-six times a night to weird dreams.
I do not want this generation to face the same things I once again am.

You got to realize something, wars are usually fought for
economic or religious reasons. We may be told it is for high moral
principle, I for one don't buy it for a minute. Many of us see this
and are fairly pragmatic about it. Some in particular, are pretty
strict Constitutionalist and believe in smaller government and
less involvement in others fights. Others think we should mind
our own business and get on with economic matters. They are no
less patriotic for their views IMHO.

I was opposed to this war from the beginning, I can see where
9/11/01 has nothing to do with Saddam, not that he isn't evil, just
that at this point he is an easy "feel good" target for Americans
to focus on. I still see no "Clear and Present Danger" from him to
cause so many Americans to be put in harms way over. Just like
the anti-gun people scream "For the Children", GW has been
screaming "WMD", "Look what he has done to his own people".
He may be a threat to the local area, he is not us. "Show me the
Money" and how he could use them on this country. I could not
give a big hairy rat's ass what he does to his people, they have
him, not us. Let them rise up against him, like we did the British
200+ years ago!

My loyalties lay with the men and women on the pointy end of
the stick, once engaged they deserve nothing less than our
unwavering support. They didn't start it, they are the
Governments tools, as my generation was, they have only control
over staying alive over there and returning to their families. That
is where I draw the line, I worry about them and will never
undermine their efforts as so many did when I was in RSVN. This
is why I quit my open negative remarks about it once they we
engaged. I too get a little upset when some continue now that it
is too late to stop it, but that is what makes us unique. We have
the God given right too!

I still think our Government is wrong in involving us in this mess,
as well as the UN being as much to blame as Saddam for lack of
action in the beginning. But, we should have stayed focused on
the terrorist's and their networks that did attack us, not find a
scape goat to divert attention. Hell most, if not all the 9/11
tango's, including Bin Laden were Saudi, why didn't we attack
them?

I have been to an unpopular war, and I know it's horrors on a
personal level while being in it and the aftermath once back in
the world. That will keep me supporting our troops, not any high
moral principle, real or imagined. I will not blindly back a
Government out of control of the people that are supposed to
control it according to it's Constitution. We need to take back
control of it, and quit being a nation of sheep that no longer think
or question what it is doing.

If you think that makes me less than patriotic, so be it. I want MY
country back, I am tired of the Socialist community it is
becoming! I can think for myself, I do Not need a benevolent
patron to take care of me. I need a Government that is
responsive to the principles it was founded upon and run "Of the
People, By the PEOPLE, For the People"! Not the Madison
Avenue, we will take care of you, don't worry, we know whats
best for you, even if you don't kind we have now.

Amen! If that's what they were doing, and calling for us to help them the way we called for the French to help us, I would be much more likely to support this war. Instead, we're going to give them their freedom for free, just like we give it to our own children for free in this country, and they're not going to appreciate it any more than our children do (or than we do, if we're younger than the WWII generation). In three shakes of a lamb's tail, once we move out, they're going to be right back where they were, trembling with fear under yet another oppressive dictatorship, with no idea what to do about it. Why? Because they're not ready for liberty yet. If they were, they'd rise up and take it, regardless of the cost.

We ought to be sending American TV, movies, radio, and commercialism into their country, not troops.

Let me point out here, just in case it's not already clear, that I don't accuse these Iraqis from a high plateau of moral superiority. I'm not worthy of liberty myself, when it comes right down to it, because I value my family, my life, and yes, my job and my possessions too much (so far, anyway) to throw a deer rifle in the back of the pickup truck, drive down to DC, and start potting politicians. I'm certainly no Patrick Henry. It's my lack of will to do that, and the same lack on the part of others like me, combined with the government's full knowledge of that lack of will, that keeps us from being truly free here in America today. We're frightened of the government, so we're slaves to an increasing extent. If the government were frightened of us, we'd be free men.


Then you're a perfect person to answer my question. Why is public support such a crucial ingredient to a professional soldier being able to do his job properly? I have even heard people recently postulating that anything less than the level of support they advocate is equivalent to treason, because it amounts to "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" in time of war. Huh?

Because we all need approval, feel needed and that we are worthy. Simple, some get it from a paycheck, others need it in leiu of one (the military). They believe they are serving their country the same as my group did way back when. Undermining it will only weaken us a a people and allow more .Gov incursions not the opposit. It is harder to go against your supporters than the detractors. Think about that one for a minute.

And any form of non-support does give aid and comfort to the adversary, it makes them bolder.

Now I promised myself I wouldn't do this any more, and I shall not.

Um, it doesn't fall under any branch of government. According to the Second Amendment, the responsibility for the security of a free state falls to a well-regulated militia, which is composed of the people, not the government. Defense of freedom isn't a government function at all. As a matter of fact, given that the government is one of the chief threats to liberty against which the Founding Fathers wanted to guard, isn't it a conflict of interest, on the order of hiring the fox to guard the henhouse, to delegate the defense of freedom to it?

Exactly! Spot on! Excellent answer. You're so smart.

Here is another reason.

Semper Fi
CNN live interview with Martin Savidge on Sunday, 30 March 2003:

Martin Savidge of CNN, embedded with the 1st Marine battalion, 1st Marine Division, was talking with 4 young Marines near his foxhole this morning live on CNN. He had been telling the story of how well the Marines had been looking out for and taking care of him since the war started. He went on to tell about the many hardships the Marines had endured since the war began
and how they all look after one another.

He turned to the four and said he had cleared it with their commanders and they could use his video phone to call home. None of these Marines had been able to talk with their families for many weeks. The 19 year old Marine next to him asked Martin if he would allow his platoon sergeant to use his call to call his pregnant wife back home whom he had not been able to talk to in over a month. A stunned Savidge, who was visibly moved by the request, nodded his head - yes. The young Marine ran off to get the sergeant.

Savidge recovered after a few seconds and turned back to the three young Marines still sitting with him. He asked which one of them would like to call home first? The Marine closest to him responded with out a moments hesitation, "Sir, if is all the same to you we would like to call the parents of a buddy of ours. Lance Cpl Brian Buesing of Cedar Key, Florida, who was killed on the 23rd of March near Nasiriya. We would like to see how
his folks are doing and let them know their son died bravely."

At that Martin Savidge totally broke down and was unable to speak. All he could get out before signing off was, "Where do they get young men like this?"

I'm afraid I still don't understand. (Feel free to take this private, if you'd rather.) You're implying that the folks in the military don't get a paycheck? As I said, I've never been in the military, but it was my impression that they did get paychecks.

Also, isn't part of the definition of being a professional being able to do your job and do it well in spite of outside issues and distractions?


Really? You figure Saddam and his buddies lurk here on 24HourCampfire? If not, in what way would any lack of support here make them bolder?

Barak, I can't go here anymore, public or private, I am out of gas. Ask me in a couple of months, OK?

Barak

You said
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Therefore, people who do value their work must find ways other than the free market to express their support if the troops are to comprehend it.

Is that what you meant to say?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sort of


I agree with you, there is no such thing as "free market" financial support for the members of the armed services. Yep, it is confiscated tax money that pays for them. "Supporters" and "Non Supporters" pay equally (no, dont give me the lecture of there is no such thing as "equal" taxation, I agree but that is not germaine to this post.) to the same fund that pays their wages.

Therefor neither support or not-support is tied to financial income. So what is support ? One does not see a sagging timber in a mine and say "I hope you dont break" and call that support. No, Big John Henry (gads, I hope I have the right folk legend) gets up under the timber and holds it while everyone else gets out. JH ACTED, he did something to aid the timber, he did something that aided the rescue of the trapped miners.


You said

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here we partially disagree. No soldier in Iraq is defending your freedom with his life.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could get picky and argue the point that by attacking Saddam and Iraq that those soldiers are removing a future threat to the citizens of the United States. I do believe this but it is not the point. I think you may mis understand my position. Any and all members of the United States military to include the Coast Guard do protect my life and freedom each and every day. They are the ones that stand in the front line of my defense. How many countries in the world have said somethig to the effect of "I really hate them thar Muricans but dang nabbit them pesky ole Marines would eat my lunch ifn I attack em. Guess it aint the right thing to do today." Those Soldiers, sailors, marines, airman, and coast guardsmen stand ready to die each and every day.



You said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be perfectly honest and politically incorrect, actually, it is really I (as a member of the citizen militia)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I may or may not agree with the point you made in the quoted sentance. In some ways I really do. However, you made the analogy in your prior post about supporting you as a software engineer and support as I apply it to the troops. You have changed from apples to oranges to apples to grapefruit.
My reply was based on your comparison between Software engineer and soldier.


You said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, that's all I can conscientiously mean by it. I'm sorry if you're not satisfied.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I cannot condemn you for your position as you are not wishing bad things upon the troops. I can say that FOR ME PERSONALLY, I could never say that "I hope you do not die and wish for a speedy return" would fullfil a statement of "I support the Troops".


To me, there are three positions to take, negative, nuetral,and positive. Yours is not negative.
I assess yours as neutral.
I assess yours as not-positive.

You said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was simply asking why it seems to be universally accepted that one of those required supplies is gifts and compliments from the general public for professionals who are soldiers, but not for professionals who are...well, pretty much anything else

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not required that a person that holds a negative position give gifts or compliments. It is not required that a person that holds a neutral position give gifts or compliments. I do believe tho that a person who professes to be a supporter (positive) should do more than just speak the words "I support the troops.".

I sent to Montana marine a letter expressing my thanks for his service to our country. That is the phrase that I use and it is as succinct a message as I can come up with. I appreciate all members of the service during times of war and times that conflict is not readily on us. I sent a small joke hopefully to give him a laugh in his time of trevail. I sent to him a brand new 2002 silver dollar with the instructions for him to give it to a young trooper that was away from home for the first time, and may not have a large family. ( I have in my pocket now as I type this a 1885 silver dollar originally issued as U.S. currency, a beat up 2001 silver dollar, and a 2002 silver dollar in a little plastic carrier. I keep the 1885 dollar in my pocket almost constantly as my good luck charm and also as a reminder of the country that I live in. ).

I told MM to tell whoever he gives the Silver Dollar to that there is someone here in the states that thinks of him daily.

Maybe, just maybe, that young marine will someday stick his hand in his pocket absentmindedly and feel that dollar and be comfited.


I do not ask that people send expensive gifts, nor do I expect volumes of speech. But a simple letter to a person or a small gift to a person is greatly greatly appreciated by those service men and women half a world away. I know, I was one of them once. No, I did not serve in VietNam, I served in Germany.


Jim B.

Well, Jim_B, I think we mostly understand each other. We probably don't agree with each other yet, but I think that with one exception the misunderstandings are pretty much gone. Hopefully, while each of us thinks the other is a little misguided, there's no reason for us to get into a barroom brawl with each other.

Let me try to clear up that one remaining misunderstanding. I didn't intend to appear as though I was trying to qualify for your support by claiming to be part of the citizen militia. I was using your lack of tangible support for me as an example only in the capacity in which I'm a professional--and that is certainly not my capacity as a militia member. Not only don't I know any professional militia members, I don't know of any professional militia members.

My comment about not caring about your support or lack of it in my capacity as a militia member had two geneses: on the one hand, I was using my experience as a militia member (which is the closest thing I have to military experience) to try to understand the military's need for popular support. On the other hand, I was making the assumption that professionals should need less popular support in their job than amateurs, and applying that assumption to make the point that if amateur militia members didn't care about public support, it was a little puzzling that professional military personnel would.

Since then, I've thought about my statement a little more, and I don't think I still stand by it. It seems unlikely that the militia will ever realistically be employed in foreign warfare, for a number of reasons; that means that its most likely use will probably be in guerrilla warfare on our own soil against occupation forces of some government--whether it be our own or a foreign one. And in such a situation, popular support would be very important indeed--not for the morale of the militia, but for the continued existence of the militia. We'll depend for many of our more mundane supplies on the generosity of the populace, and our operational security will depend on ordinary folks who happen to see us not running straight to the garrison commanders and reporting. We'll probably also find strategic, tactical, and operational intelligence from the people helpful.

That is to say, in other words, we will be a service of the free market. If the free market does not value us or see a need for us, we will go the way of the Betamax standard, and for the same reasons.

As well we should.

Barak,

I would like to respond to your post of 4/1/03 at 10:15p.m. In it you stated,

"I've never been in the standing military, only in the militia. Can somebody who has been in the standing military explain to me what the big deal is about supporting the troops? I mean, they're professionals with a job to do, right? I don't mean to offend anybody, but if they are professionals, should our support really matter to them?"

First of all I believe that we have a lot in common, you and I. That might include the belief that with all its shortcomings, this country is about as good as it gets on this planet as far as individual liberties and standard of living go. Then there is a presumed mutual love of the outdoors (I derived this from your description of your location). Oh, and then there's the interest in firearms or at least politics as it applies to their possession by an individual. I'm new here so bear with me. You seem patriotic, if not supportive. You have the nuts to post your picture and your e-mail address along with your opinions. I can respect that. A lot of people like to take pot shots at others under a pseudonym and that takes so little courage. If I say anything that may tend to offend you, it's not personal. I wouldn't know you from Adam. We're both firearms enthusiasts, presumably with no criminal convictions, we pay our taxes and we're Americans. Any perceived animosity you may infer from my insinuation is simply that: perceived.

I served 20 years in the regular US Army and then retired as a Staff Sergeant. I remained an Infantry Soldier for the entire time, although I was at times assigned to non-Infantry-related duties, (Recruiter, Range NCOIC, G3 Plans NCOIC). Mostly though, my assignments were to Infantry battalions where I served in various leadership positions including Platoon Sergeant. I would still be there if they had let me stay. Unfortunately when you reach 20 years and you are not an SFC or better, you're done.

In reading your comments I can ascertain that you are indeed an intelligent person. So when I tell you that you can't pay a soldier enough to live the lifestyle we did, I expect you not to try to counter that by saying that soldiers don't have any problem with cashing their paychecks or benefiting from any other niceties they are afforded. Rather, I would expect that you could appreciate the sense of patriotic duty driving our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines. I believe I detect a note of cynicism in your question pertaining to the value of the moral support of the nation as it benefits the "Professional Soldiers". These troops indeed discharge their duties in a most professional manner. This does not make them professionals, however. Most of them do not make the military a career.

The lifestyle is HARSH. I don't want to go into a lot of detail because I wouldn't want anyone to get the mistaken impression that I am for one instant complaining. For your benefit though, I will attempt to quickly elucidate some of the features of military life that would likely cause a person with your attitude to quit. Abject subordination to authority is part of the military culture. Family separation borders on the surreal. Sleep deprivation is the norm. Food palatability is poor. Responsibility and accountability are WELL BEYOND that required of civilian counterparts. Physical fitness is a fact of life: we do physical training even while deployed to field training. Pay is low. I don't care how much we save by dint of the vaunted military benefits. Servicemembers and their families enjoy a razor-thin margin of error when managing the family budget. When these folks qualify for food stamps, I believe it is a black eye for our nation. Wow.

Overtime pay, holiday pay, etc. is non-existent. Compensatory time is the standard. When I think back on all the days "off" the US Army still owes me per their very own policies, I can only laugh. I have long since let them off the hook for that. I served with a sense of dignity and with a sense of pride befitting a soldier of this great nation. Going the extra mile without direct, tangible benefit was simply part of the culture.

From your picture, you don't appear to have missed too many meals. Don't take this as an insult because I don't mean it that way. But I will tell you that as a soldier I have gone hungry more times than you would be willing to believe in order to effectively discharge my duties out of a sense of commitment, of pride and of professionalism. In fact, we conduct leadership courses that are guaranteed to take about 40 to 50 pounds off of a youngster in who is in good shape to begin with.

The chance that you will sustain injuries during training is good. We manage risks with assessment programs, safety policies, standard operating procedures, organic medical support, etc. and yet we still kill each other through accident, mechanical failure and numerous other methods. Ever see someone burn-in from 1250 feet in the air because his parachutes failed? Yeah, I know that's why Data Programmers are smarter than Soldiers are. Anyway we regroup and drive on. Sometimes we are even called upon to fight wars.

Now, this brings us to your questions. What is the big deal about supporting the troops? If they are professionals should our support really matter to them? These are no ordinary people. They willingly bear nearly any burden in the effort to keep what we as a nation hold most dearly from becoming a distant memory. That would be among other things, our individual liberties, our beloved family members, and our lifestyle as Americans. The troops are at a minimum deserving of our gratitude. Even one so callous as you to their contribution should be able to understand that without their daily sacrifice, America's business conglomeration would be unable to carry out its day-to-day operations.

Trade dwindles in unstable locales. Your hometown could become one of them were it not for our military forces. Naturally, that would only be the first symptom. A robust capability for national security is the bedrock foundation upon which business, such as yours, is built. You see right now Barak, no one has the combat power to wage war with us in a manner that would result in the supremacy of the instigator. Sure, there will always be terrorism just like there will always be crime. It could be a lot worse though if there were no one to strike at the center of gravity of terror organizations like we do. I can't do it by myself. You can't. The police can't. That leaves the military forces.

The big deal about supporting them lies in the fact that these people are our fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, friends and neighbors. All of them have families and none of them want to die. Each of them pines for their loved ones back home and none are guaranteed to return. I have known this feeling often over the years, yet it did not stop me from doing what I knew to be right. Often our troops die in aircraft crashes, they drown or maybe they were just sleeping on the ground when an armored vehicle from their own unit was accidentally backed over several of them, ending their precious lives. How nice it must have been sitting back here in the rear with the beer, writing computer programs under the umbrella of protection afforded you by the most lethal military force ever to range the face of this Earth.

I can't let you get away without telling you this story. In 1989 I reported to my unit in Korea. Along with me was a young NCO whose first name was Robert. Both of us were slated as squad leaders. We became friends. I was married and had a daughter, almost two years old. Robert was married and had two children a little older. Over the next year we suffered through some truly challenging weather conditions, leadership situations, conducting live ambush patrols in the DMZ, etc. One day during the Operation Desert Shield buildup I received orders to report to Fort Ord, CA. Since Robert arrived the same day I did, I kind of felt bad for him when he had to go back to the field while I processed out of the unit and headed home on leave. I was walking down a street at Fort Ord one day several months later and happened upon a soldier I recognized from my unit in Korea. As he brought me up to speed on what happened after I left the unit, I learned of Robert's death. His squad was participating in a company level deliberate attack on a live fire range supported by Abrams tanks and Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicles. It being nighttime and the objective being covered in smoke, Robert understandably became a little disoriented. His squad emerged from some covering terrain at the wrong location. Robert took a 7.62mm slug from a tank-mounted coaxial machine gun in the back of the head. It blew his face off and he died a tragic, needless and unglamorous death right there. His team leader, who lived, took one in the back. It came out through his chest and fortunately only collapsed a lung.

Sadly, that is part of the cost of freedom. Yeah, I'm glad it wasn't me. I feel for his young family. I know they loved him. I saw their pictures in his barracks room. He was a real nice guy. He wasn't fighting in a war. He was just serving; just maintaining the protective barrier around you. You asked, If they are professionals should our support really matter to them? Yes, it mattered to Robert and it mattered to me, too. I can't believe he and I were too much different from any other soldier, commissioned, non-commissioned or otherwise. We don't bear these burdens for an ungrateful nation. In our hearts we know our fellow countrymen appreciate our efforts and our sacrifices. Who are our fellow countrymen? Why, they're our families, friends and neighbors. Maybe you don't personally know a servicemember but that's no reason to discount their contributions to life as you know it.

Support a Data Programmer? Sure, no problem. But I think you have a bit to learn about selfless service, gratitude and loyalty to your nation just the same. Oh, and as far as the military coming after you, they'll do as duly elected officials tell them. Boy am I glad Al Gore isn't President.

Paul

Very good Sgt. I know of what you speak, I was one of those "Baby Killers" of RSVN and it really smarted when someone would throw that out. Especially since I had never done so.

Then there were the folks I worked with after getting out, many of the younger ones just could not understand why I would work a little overtime to finish a case or an arrest when I could have waited till next shift. They did not understand it was just the right thing to do so the job was done. Didn't get a lot of appreciation for that either, but, I like you seem to have, got the self satisfaction of doing my best no matter what it took. And the rare thanks from a co-worker, supervisor or victim I had helped made it so much sweeter. It's not about pay, it is about knowing that someone, somewhere does appreciate what you are doing. That is all, nothing more or less.

Some places in this country, yes. Other places, not so much. But you're right: about the only place I've seriously thought about going if I get chased out of this country is Costa Rica. Technically, they have a socialist government; but pragmatically, it's a fair bit less intrusive than the so-called "republic" we have here. But realistically, I think I'll probably be in prison or dead long before I have a chance to get there.


Yes, yes, and yes. If "America" is defined as the vision of individual liberty and responsibility collectively held by our founders, then I love America. If "America" is our current government, politicians, and body of law, then I hate, fear, and despise it. I tend to choose the former definition.


Ah--our first point of disagreement. That picture's not me--it's just a guy I wouldn't entirely mind looking like if I were his age. I don't know him, and he doesn't know me, although I do know that the two of us are diametrically opposed on a number of important issues. But I can be reached at that e-mail address.


I don't begrudge soldiers their salary. I do think that the US military is far too big and powerful, and as such it acts as an irresistible temptation to politicians to engage in the sort of adventurism we've seen lately. I'm not completely sure that the military belongs in the hands of the government in the first place, but if it does, I'd like to see a very, very small force that couldn't possibly invade other countries without leaving our own dangerously unprotected. But I do believe that the laborer is worthy of his hire.


It also appears as though we disagree about the meaning of the word "professional." From where I sit, if you take money in exchange for doing something, then you're a professional somethinger, at least at that moment, regardless of what your career plans are.


I understand about the harsh lifestyle. Is it your argument that the harsh lifestyle is what makes the public support crucial?


Mmm...a hot button of some sort? Sorry.


Some fairly significant disagreements here. I hafta scram, so I can't answer with my usual loquacity.

First: should a worker be compensated according to the value he places on his work, or according to the value those who pay him place on his work?

Second: American troops have been able to do little or nothing to prevent our individual liberties and American lifestyle from becoming a distant memory. To do that, they would need an invader to repulse. The traditional function of modern American troops is to be sent into other countries in order to make distant memories of other people's individual liberties and former lifestyle.

Third: please explain what the adventurous, verging on imperialist, American foreign policy has to do with free-market business; I don't understand.

Gotta go; if I have some time I'll answer the rest of your post later.

Shalom,
Barak

We don't agree on this point; it might be interesting to argue it further, perhaps in another thread. I think I can demonstrate pretty vividly that coercive government forces always screw up everything they attempt--even when it's well-intentioned--when compared with the way that free-market forces would deal with the same problem, including national security.


Again, we disagree.

First, the reason international terrorists are angry with us in the first place is because of the international adventurist meddling that our politicians have been able to accomplish using the direct or indirect threat of our huge military. The free market would find other, non-coercive, cheaper, less offensive ways to accomplish its goals.

Second, the military forces have not exactly covered themselves in glory when it comes to "striking at the center of gravity of terror organizations." Osama bin Laden is still at large, and the Afghans are claiming they want the Taliban back. Nobody can say for sure that Saddam Hussein is dead or in custody, and the Iraqis are getting pretty fed up with their new Pax Americana, what with all the looting, violence, and weapons confiscations.

Third, the reason the military has been unsuccessful is not that our soldiers are incompetent or immoral, but simply because they have been grievously misused. International terrorism is not the sort of centralized threat against which a military force is useful. It--unlike Naziism, for example--does not spring from a leader, or from a party: it springs from a cause. You can't assassinate or conquer a cause with military force; if you remove one leader, another will spring up in his place. The way to deal with a diffuse threat like international terrorism (assuming you've already been too stupid to avoid provoking it by providing the cause in the first place) is with a diffuse defense like an armed and independent citizenry. (Do you hear of terrorist attacks on Switzerland? No? Me neither. There are two reasons for that: first, they don't go around sticking their noses in other people's business and pi$$ing them off; second, they all have guns.) We are in something of a jam in this country, because we A) have already pi$$ed off the bad guys, and B) we have a mostly-disarmed citizenry that is heavily dependent on a burgeoning government. However, sending the military out to make even more folks angry enough to sponsor or join the terrorists isn't the answer.

It's interesting to watch the Bush administration at work, because governments learn very, very slowly, if at all, and it's likely that the sort of grand strategy the US military uses against international terrorism in foreign countries will be roughly the same as that it will use against citizen militias in this country when the time comes. One can watch and learn. Tanks and artillery and aircraft aren't much use against them, but a persistent and well-connected network of "pockets of resistance" can really harsh their mellow.


We have very different perspectives. In its current incarnation and employment, I think the US military endangers me much more than it protects me. I've said it before: my individual liberties are in much more danger from Baby Bush than from Saddam Hussein. Hussein has never so much as tickled a single one of my liberties; Bush, on the other hand, created the Department of Homeland Security and signed the USA PATRIOT Act--and started the biggest unprovoked war of naked aggression since Abraham Lincoln. And now he's effectively colonized a Middle Eastern country full of angry Muslims.

Does that make you feel safe?


Yup--different perspectives. I don't believe I exist to serve my government; I believe the government exists to serve me--that is, to secure my unalienable rights, deriving its just powers only from my consent. (Pop quiz: do you know where those words come from?) And it's been doing a pi$$-poor job of that lately, while extorting from me enough money every year to buy a nice car or a large safe full of guns. So if I owe any gratitude or loyalty to the US government, then yes: I guess I do have a lot to learn about gratitude and loyalty.


Just as the Gestapo and the Schuetzstaffel did, you mean? I know: that's what I figured.

Much as I hate to agree with Barak, I think you're way off the mark when you say;



Last time I checked, everyone in the military takes an oath "to defend and protect the Constution of the United States against all ememies, foreign and domestic." Any order that violates the Constitution violates that oath. Therefore it's an illegal order and need not be obeyed. Just because someone is a "duly elected official" doesn't mean that they're not a domestic enemy and therefore can't be in violation of the Constitution. Just how far do you think Al Gore, Chuck Shumer and Diane Feinstein will go to protect your rights. They all are or have been "duly elected officals" and none of them give violating the Constitution a second thought. These days our own Congress is our worst enemy. The current practice in Congress these days is to vote for any bill you support, no matter how shaky the constituional ground that supports that bill and letting the courts sort out whether or not it passed constitutional muster, rather than determining whether or not a bill is constitutional before the vote and refusing to vote for any bill that violates the Constitution no matter how strongly you believe in the cause that supports the bill. But I digress. Bottom line is that any order that would attempt to use the U.S. military forces to subjugate the civillian population of the United States in any way would be an illegal order and every member of the U. S. military would have the right, and the duty, to disobey it. Anything less would be a violation of the oath you swore and the Constitution of the United States. And don't start thinking I don't know what I'm talking about. I took that oath 30 some years ago, and although I may have been released from active service, nothing can release me from that oath.

As far as the rest of your post to Barak goes, give it a rest. He doesn't get it and he'll never get it. If he wants to remain ignorant and selfish in the belief that he and his rights are more important than anyone else's that's his right, and he has as much right to believe that as I have to have to my opinion. He seems to think that he is some sort of intellectual bringing enlightenment to the uneducated masses. That's fine. That's his right. He doesn't have to agree with you or me or anyone else. If you don't understand why he feels that way that's fine too. If you have a problem with it then you need to give some serious thought to what you were serving for all those years and the oath that you took.

Barak,

You seem to have all the answers. Good luck with it. Nothing further. Out.

Paul

Maybe not, but maybe so. I'm not completely close-minded. I am susceptible to reasoned, rational arguments--and I hold up as evidence of that statement the fact that I was once a conservative and am now a libertarian. I became a libertarian specifically because of reasoned, rational arguments--namely, the ones that are quite common in the libertarian camp and somewhat rarer in the conservative camp--at least, in the areas where the two camps disagree.

But barefaced, unsupported assertions ("For my money, the time for dissidence is past") don't impress me. Neither do appeals to emotion ("These are no ordinary people. They willingly bear nearly any burden in the effort to keep what we as a nation hold most dearly from becoming a distant memory"). Or government-generated, media-approved propaganda ("By attacking Saddam and Iraq...those soldiers are removing a future threat to the citizens of the United States"). Given that I'm autistic, sarcasm ("Yeah, I know that's why Data Programmers are smarter than Soldiers are") is also largely lost on me. And I'm not intimidated by ad hominem ("Even one so callous as you to their contribution should be able to understand...") work.

If you've got something I can sink my teeth into, I'll be glad to take a look at it. But if you don't, then my stubborn refusal to "convert to your religion" may very well be at least as much due to your inability to provide "it" as to my inability to get "it."

Barak, I ain't makeing a fight here, OK. A simple question, how would you feel if all you got from your job was a paycheck? No well done or nice work, just once in awhile? The military is not like a civilian job, you can't just quit and move on if you feel unappreciated, underpaid, over worked, ET AL. It is a contractual position with few options. What is wrong with a little support or pat on the back once in awhile? What does it cost?

This I do not understand. If all I got out of my career path was a paycheck and no satisfaction or appreciation of my efforts, I would have changed career paths rather rapidly given the option. Civy side we have that option, in the Military you have to fulfill you contract or even civilian employment will forever be screwed after you get out.

For the benefit of those who don't understand or are not familiar with that small word that has a large meaning:

autism, self-absorption, especially extreme withdrawal into fantasy, autistic

I think that Barak has just explained a lot and has also given us the bottom line as far as he is concerned.

I don't think I could fight with you, my friend. I hope they never send you after my guns, because it'd be awfully tough for me to refuse you.


What a strangely apropos question. That's exactly the situation in which I find myself at the moment--and not only that, but I'm being used to do lots of work which is professionally beneath me: somebody being paid a quarter of what I make could do it just as well as I can.

And here's my answer--a quote from Mr. Horse of the Ren & Stimpy Show: "Nosir, I dooooon't like it."

But I do it anyway, and I do it well, because I'm a professional. Suppose I were to do a sloppy job, and defend myself when called on it by saying, "Well, I couldn't really be expected to do any better, because I wasn't getting any recognition or appreciation or emotional support!" I can't say for sure, because I've never tried that, but my suspicion is that I wouldn't stay employed very long.


It has occurred to me, believe me. If the job market were a little better for digitheads, I would undoubtedly be somewhere else by now. I wouldn't even mind being in a completely different field, except that I have a family to feed and I'm worth several times more as a software developer as I am as anything else.

Hey--I have kind of a big nose, too. Got any big-nose jokes? And I wear glasses, and baseball caps are really goofy-looking on me. How about it--can you do anything with that?

Or is this just Anything To Avoid a Rational Argument Day in your town?

Thats the easy one, I am one of those folks that WOULD NOT Follow That Order!

As to the rest, I guess we all live by different standards. I am the kind that will get real stupid over principle, I sometimes even fail to give (actually in the past, no longer) a darn where the next paycheck is coming from. I am more interested in the job than the money. And no I am not independently wealthy, I am of rather meger means actually. This by no means says you are wrong in you reasons. I just tend to take action, sometimes without much forethought I am afraid. Thus the differing views on this subject.

Be Well my friend.

Of course you are. I know that. I was just teasing you a little.


I've been known on occasion to do the same sort of thing, but having a job where I get paid ridiculous amounts of money to do dumb makework stuff that nobody really needs or wants, simply to keep me on the payroll in case something they need me for comes along--that's not against my principles. Against my preferences, certainly; but not against my principles.
If the job involved doing something unethical or immoral, then principle would come into play.


Yah, I guess I'm not a particularly impulsive guy, just by nature. As a matter of fact, if it weren't for my wife, I'd be positively boring. (Even more than I am already, I mean.)

Can't have a rational argument with someone who admittedly lives in fantasy land. The rest of it doesn't make any difference to me. If you're looking for sympathy because you feel that your physical appearance doesn't match your towering intellect, you'll find it in the dictionary between sh*t and syphilis. Actually, it's not all about you. It's mostly about the people you continually make disparaging remarks about.

You said in another post that you love your country. Do you love it enough to forgive it and help it recover?

People I make disparaging remarks about? Please--to whom are you referring?

Oh--politicians? You're concerned that I make disparaging remarks about politicians?? Chuckle. C'mon--can you seriously think of some response appropriate to politicians other than disparagement?* (Perhaps, "He was young! He needed the money!"?) If you can, then I guess you're right: it's tough to have a rational argument with someone who admittedly lives in fantasy land.


Forgive it? Forgive it for what? My country has never sinned against me. It can't sin: it's an idea, bequeathed to us at great cost by great men. I (and you, and he, and they over there by that tree) have sinned against it by succumbing to our cowardice and electing politicians who are worthy of nothing but disparagement,* and then by cowering in craven acquiescence to their demands and their presumption.

* The honorable Dr. Ron Paul hastily excepted, of course.

Here you go again. You just can't seem to grasp the fact that the government is just as much a part of your country as you are: just as much a part of your country as your nose is a part of your face.

Our country is the sum total of all it's parts. That would include the military, the politicians, "I (and you and he and they over there by that tree)," et al. You don't get to pick and choose this part and that part because those are the parts that you approve of and like and leave everything that you don't approve of or like out.

If you don't like the path that our country is going down what are you doing to correct that?

We seem to be talking past each other. Even the likes of politicians understand the differences between a country and its government and its military: that's why they were trying to shoot soldiers and politicians in Iraq but not civilians.

The vision of individual liberty that our forefathers had is what I love. It is imperfectly codified in the Constitution, was somewhat less perfectly (but still with good faith and honest effort) implemented by George Washington and company, and then brutally gang-raped by our present government and its political ancestors back at least to Abraham Lincoln--as we and our political ancestors stood by and watched, some of us even cheering them on.

(No, I'm not one of those Constitution-as-Holy-Scripture libertarians. As Lysander Spooner said, "Either [the Constitution] has allowed such a government as we now have, or it has been powerless to prevent it.")

If you're defining "country" differently than I am, then it will be useless for you to assume that I love it the way you have defined it simply because I have claimed to love it the way I defined it.


I've gone into this in more depth elsewhere on this site, so I won't go into the whole thing again, but I believe that in the current climate lovers of liberty should have two main priorities: First, to acquire militarily serviceable guns and ammunition off paper and protect them against the coming confiscations. Second, to teach succeeding generations about liberty wherever and whenever possible.

Voting? Well, yes, I still vote, but mostly I have lost faith in its effectiveness. (No matter whom you vote for, the government always wins.) Donating money to political action groups? Well, I still do that too, but again, the very largest effect one can possibly hope for is to delay the inevitable crisis, and time is decidedly on the government's side: delay will only make the crisis bigger. Preach? Persuade? Orate? Well, as you know, I do that too; but I also despair of the effectiveness of that. Compared to giants like L. Neil Smith, Vin Suprynowicz, Claire Wolfe, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, and others, I'm less than an insect: and the combined horsepower of all those plus others has not succeeded in waking up enough Americans for the libertarian vote to break 5% in a Presidential election year. If you're going to turn people's hearts toward liberty, I think you probably have to do it when they're very young. Run for office? Yeah, right. What a tremendous waste of time, money, and intelligence--and there's always the slight danger that I might accidentally win, and put myself squarely in the crosshairs of people like me.

So I'm doing the two things I think are important. I'll keep doing them, and eventually I'll be arrested and thrown in prison or killed like everyone else who refuses to be a slave. It's the least I can do for the founders who did so much for me.

You are correct I am sure no one has sent you any care packages. We in the military are professionals, just as you are. But if you stopped being a computer programmer tomorrow, they would hire another. If they couldn't find enough programmers, I am sure they would up the salary until enough people decided to go that path.

Support our troops. To me it means that you should be greatful for every jelly doughnut you eat in the morning. It doen't appear as if you could run a mile with a 50 pound pack. If there are not enough programmers, Microsoft will not start a draft. If there are not enough members in the military, you can be sure the government will start a draft. Perhaps it will be you. That is why we support the troops. We thank them for doing what many of you would not do willingly.

Yes you can go on about the military being to big, there shouldn't be a draft etc, etc. But that doesn't change the facts. Support the Troops (read) Thank GOD they picked that as a profession, I wouldn't want to give up my Starbucks and jelly doughnut in the morning. If enough people hadn't choose the military as a profession, it might be YOU.

So then in other words what you are saying is that there is no hope for curtailing the infringement imposed by government on our personal liberty through any Constitutional means other than armed rebellion? That any attempt to correct government injustices is futile other than by armed rebellion? That politics is merely mental masterbation and meaningless as a way to effect governmental change? That in the end it all comes down to one man, one bullet rather than one man, one vote?

Felt somebody reading over my shoulder, which has always been able to break my chain of thought. Looked around and lo! I beheld the Energizer bunny.

"You've stopped!" I blurted in surprise.

He nodded.

"Those guys on that thread!" he said. "Sure wish I could go on and on like that. Looks like dissidence just has it all over us batteries."

Please don't try to scare me with the prospect of a draft. A draft is nothing but slavery. If the government can't find volunteers willing to die for its objectives, then it ought to be eminently clear to all concerned that those objectives are misguided and wrong--and what is needed is less government, not more soldiers.

Trying to motivate somebody with the threat of a draft is every bit as morally bankrupt as trying to motivate somebody with the threat of any other form of slavery. I will never be drafted, and neither will any other lover of liberty.

In WWII, whether the objectives of the government were met or not might possibly have had something to do with my coffee and donuts in the morning, if I drank coffee or ate donuts, which I don't. But all the wars since then have had far more to do with projecting American imperialism than protecting American freedom--and there are people who would even argue with me about WWII.

I think there's one hope other than armed rebellion. Even as huge and powerful and oppressive as our government has become, it is still too small to force on us anything that a majority of the population is violently unwilling to accept. That means that if enough people become unwilling to accept the privileges and powers that the government arrogates to itself, our corrupt politicians can be further corrupted back into keeping their oaths of office rather than ignoring them.

I look with no small amount of awe on what was accomplished a few years ago by the feminist and homosexual-rights lobbies. They didn't truly convince hardly any politicians, and they killed very few people, but they did fix it so that one's days as a politician were severely numbered unless one mouthed the proper party line. By blackmailing them and threatening their jobs (and not directly through the voting process either), these two lobbies corrupted already corrupt politicians into supporting their causes.

So if enough people in this country want their liberty back, and are willing to do what is necessary to take it, it's quite possible that we could take it back without much bloodshed at all.

The question, of course, is the same as it has always been: how does the message of liberty reach and convince that many people? You, for example: you are under the impression that you already live in a free country. The government perpetrates a few minor inconveniences on you, but you're convinced that it's your duty to put up with them (because they were perpetrated by what you consider to be duly-elected politicians), and, within reason, with whatever other indignities the politicians invent (provided, of course, that they're your particular brand of politicians, rather than the other kind), and that in addition to your tax money, you should support the government in other ways as well--for example, cheering on government troops in combat regardless of who or why they're fighting. You already think you're a liberty advocate, and you dismiss anyone who says you're not as a nutcase. How can libertarians possibly wake up people like you?

The answer, I think, is not reasoned argument, but simple naked force. Most existing liberty advocates (including me) didn't get this way because one day we decided to do a little careful research into the history and the writings of the founding fathers and the great libertarian philosophers. We got this way because we found ourselves legally coerced into or out of something, and it didn't seem fair to us. (All humans have an innate sense of what's fair and what's not, that is entirely independent of custom, law, or tradition.) So we started thinking and reading and researching about what it ought to be fair for government to be able to do, and along the way we all found horrifying, appalling things that this government and others had done not because they had any right to, but simply because nobody stopped them.

I think you're the same as we used to be. For me, it was Brady II in November 1998. For you, I don't know. For now, whenever the government decides to claim it has a right to something of yours--your money, your guns, your children, your land, your car, your house, your privacy, whatever--you say to yourself, "Well, okay, they're the government; I suppose they can handle it better than I can--and besides, it's free, right?" But eventually the government will get around to claiming rights and privileges from you that even you think are unfair, and you'll begin looking around and finding out that it's not right, the government can not handle it better than you can, it's not free, and that in fact the only real difference between you and the government is that you have to do what the government says, while the government can do anything it wants because it can legally kill people.

So that's the one hope I think we have. If the government should begin trampling liberties at a little too quick a rate, or if it turns out that a little more true American blood than it had anticipated runs in the veins of the people, then suddenly there will be tens or hundreds of thousands of people demanding to know who the government thinks it is to be able to take those liberties away--and come to think of it, what about all these other liberties that have already been suppressed for years and decades? Once such a movement catches on, you could theoretically find politicians scrambling all over themselves to be the first to suggest restoring a liberty so as not to lose their jobs and have to work for a living.

A groundswell of outrage fueled by government overreach: that's my dream. But it has to happen before the government reaches the point where public opinion no longer means anything to it; once that happens, then I think we do have to kill people to get anywhere--and where we get after that will be anybody's guess. And as long as the government can keep control of itself and takes away only one small liberty at a time, and allows enough time for acclimatization before it goes after the next, that dream may never materialize.

But I'll tell you what: I'm thinking a President like Al Gore or Dick Gephardt or Hillary! Clinton might just be what we need to stimulate that groundswell of outrage.

You seem to assume quite a bit about me. Actually, it seems that you are more interested in expressing your opinion than in listening to someone else's. Most of the above has been discussed previously and you've gotten most of it wrong.



Sounds to me like you simply want to get back at the government for something that may or may not have happened to you in the past. More like revenge than the pursuit of liberty.




You've stated most of this before and again you assume quite a bit and again you're wrong.

I do believe that we have found one thing that we agree on though. I think that we can agree that we disagree and probably always will.

Oh--I'm sorry. I didn't realize that presumption would be a problem with you, given your earlier facility with it in regard to autism.

I'll try to keep your sensitivities in mind in the future.

See below:



Doesn't appear to be presumtion. It appears to be a direct quote from your post in which you discribe yourself as autistic. I simply posted the dictionary definition for the benefit of those who may have been unfamiliar with the word. Here's another definition from the Merrriam/Webster Dictionary.

"Autism, Absorption in self-centered subjective mental activity (as daydreaming, fantasies, delusions, and hallucinations) esp. when accompanied by marked withdrawal from reality - autistic."

Your arguements continue to deteriorate.

Now hurry up and make another post so that you can have the last word.

It's okay: you can have the last word, if you like. I deserve to lose it, for succumbing to the temptation to expand the argument to include personalities.

Congratulations; you win this one. Don't get used to it, though.

No, I get the last word here!
This was supposed to be a board about dissent versus patriotism.
Just today I went by the offices of the Montana Wilderness Association, a Green group, and they've STILL got the No Iraq War sign in their window. Never mind that the local antiwar protests here in Montana were marshalled by, you guessed it, anti-Bush Greens and "progressives."
The argument was, it's all about oil. Never mind that our country runs on resources and ecos seem to oppose all resource production unless it's organic, which means buggy and of spotty supply and reliability.
These folks simply don't like America -- the great IDEA as I think Barak mentioned.
Fine, let them make idiots of themselves...when they come to the table later or want to do business, let's just say the relationship will be strained. They have a right to be stupid, and I have a right to treat them accordingly.
Okay, now for some dissent.
I have a HUGE problem with the USA Patriot Act, the kind of inept knee-jerk garbage that terrorist acts have the potential to tweak from the puny minds of our political betters.
And THAT's why I support the war, and our troops. The import of terror from bases overseas onto American shores is not necessarily such a physical threat, but terrorism always spawns repression in a vicious cycle.
Terrorists operate in a universe where they have no other option, such as voting, or carping on a Web board, or cussing out their Senator at a public meeting. That's why terroristic acts are so rare in America...we as citizens have other options for shaping our destinies, both individually and collectively.
Not going for the throat would have allowed Muslim terrorism to fester unchecked, and in the future we would have seen more murder and even more wasteful "security" actions. Been to an airport lately? That's just a peek at life in a police state, and I HATE it.
"Where are you traveling, sir. What's in your bag sir. What's this thing. Why are you reading that wolf report here, sir. Take off your shoes, sir. I'm sorry, sir, but this set of camera screwdrivers you've had for 20 years could be used as a weapon, so we'll have to confiscate them."
A failure to kick ass overseas, even with the problems we are now having with the Saddamites, would have only led to more of the same.
As for justification...let's put a pinko liberal media spin on this. Say some evil right wing militia kooks were training in the U.S. and heading to Tel Aviv to kill Jews or Riyadh to kill Muslims on Hajj, while the US government did nothing to stop it. Can you imagine the diplomatic crapstorm if citizens of one sovereign nation traveled to another to kill its citizens without the home country taking action to control such crime? Act of war.
The Talibs weren't doing it. Saddam took no action, and in fact supported award systems for "successful" Hamas families.
So now we have a forward operating base with rapid deployment capabilities right at the center of the terror tumor zone. Syria, Iran, and so on and so forth are blinking rapidly and casting worried glances within their borders...governments that rule by force understand that it can be used against them, too.
Not pretty, but more EFFECTIVE than the alternative.
Finally, Barak, I'm a quasi-libertarian. I have a problem with the "libertarian" purists because I believe government, especially the United States version, has a job: to protect the freedoms of the individual citizen from all encroachments, foreign and domestic, whatever the source...be it Big Brother, Big Labor, Big Religion, Big Business, Big Green, or just plain old Big Government.
Being in Iraq sucks...but not being there would have sucked worse in the long run. Thank God we have troops willing to suck it up.