So I thought of a debate topic
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): So I thought of a debate topic
Do you think that a person in the military who does not support the war in Iraq and doesn't agree with President Bush on our reasons for being there should be allowed NOT to go? Should their personal opinions be put to the side to finish the job they are ordered to do since they signed the military contract? What's your take on that? Are they defending our right to freedom of speech while ultimately giving up a bit of their own?
I don't believe that a person in the military should be allowed to not go. Do you realize how many people would take the opposite opinion on it just to get out of going!! In my honest opinion, this is a risk they knowingly take when they enlist in the service.
When you sign up, you are expecte to follow orders, regardless of personal opinion. In fact, boot camp attempts to drum any personal opinions out of your head.
So, no I don't think that a soldier who does not support the war sould be allowed to opt out - unless they are willing to have a dishonorable discharge. When you sign up, you know you may have to go to war - it's an occupational hazzard.  .
Ame
I was a teacher. If I didn't think art was something the children should have to do. If I didn't think it had value and I quit taking my class, I would get fired.
So I do feel like if a military person wants to speak up against the war and not go, they shoudl be allowed, but be dishonorably discharged (fired!). Now people more than likely wouldn't pick that option because it would cost them a lot in benefits later on.
I think if a person is in the active military today, s/he is there as a volunteer. And, people in the National Guard are also there voluntarily. They knew, when they signed up, that there was always the chance they'd be sent somewhere where they didn't want to be or somewhere where they didn't think the US should be. That's the risk you take, as Vicki says, when you sign up.
Having said that, if a person in the military has strong opinions, s/he can refuse to go, and pay the price. I have a dear friend (now a United Methodist minister) who had volunteered to serve as a corpsman during the Vietnam War years (he volunteered a half-breath before being drafted), thinking he could hold to his personal moral beliefs and do corpsman work. He found that he couldn't, and sought a "conscientious objector" discharge from the military, knowing there might be a price. The price was 18 months in a federal prison. He has no regrets.
Yes, when you are in the military you give up a lot of "civil rights". That's a fact of life. And I don't think people in the military can have the same full range of rights that civilians have - not and have a properly run, effective military. And yes, people in the military give up some of the rights they enjoyed as civilians so that the rest of us can continue to have those rights as civilians. I don't see any way around it.
Surprised? Well, while I am generally very pro civil rights, and mostly anti-war, I am not against all wars. And I recognize that given that we live in a real world with real problems, non-violence the way the Quakers practice it just won't work. (I am totally against this present war in Iraq, have been from before it started. One of the reasons I was opposed before the start was that it seemed to me that there was little if any recognition of the long occupation that would be necessary after we "won", and I continue to be appalled at the lack of adequate planning and administration, and the way our troops get jerked around by this lack of appropriate planning - I don't know why they didn't just listen to the generals in the first place. But, I also don't think we can just walk out on a certain time-table. We "broke" it, and unfortunately, our troops have to "fix" it, if it is fixable at all.)
Sometimes when you put your beliefs on the line, you wind up paying a price. Fact of life. I am very aware of that each time I participate in a demonstration, and ask myself each time if this is an issue for which I am willing to risk arrest. And if I don't believe enough in the issue, I don't take the risk. If I take the risk, however, I expect that I might wind up having to pay for it.
I think the same "rules" apply - or should apply - to people who are voluntarily in the military and find themselves being deployed in places they don't think "we" should be, or places they don't want to be.
I haven't read any of the posts, but IMO YES, they definitely should have to go. That's why I didn't sign up for the military because I don't want someone else telling me what to do. When you sign up, you're agreeing that you will be told what to do, when, where, and for how long.
I think it sucks but when you sign up, that's what you agree to.
Ditto Ginny.
I agree, it's the chance you take when you sign up.
Groove
I agree with everyone else. But I do have a friend who's DH wasn't allowed to go to Iraq because they thought his personal views on the war would bring down the morale and safety of the troops. While he didn't beg not to go, I thought that was kind of silly and IMO makes him out to be not the greatest Marine by putting his personal views out there so much that it probably would affect morale and safety.
Maybe he came to realize how strongly he felt about it *after* becoming a Marine, you know?
Maybe he came to realize how strongly he felt about it *after* becoming a Marine, you know?
Well thats just to darn bad. Thats whats wrong with a lot of young "men" these days. They decide after they have sex and impregnate thier girlfriends that they don't want to be daddy's. But whats done is done. Those men are now fathers (biologically, anyways). When those young men sign the contract to become a Marine they are made fully aware of their commitment to the Marine Corps. They are made fully aware their obligations and they are not held at gun point to sign any enlistment papers. Not one of the Marines that have enlisted since March 2003 have any right to boo hoo about going over there. They came in with the understanding that they were 99.999% probably going to IRAQ! Just this last Friday night my dh got a call from one of his hold students asking what one needs to do to get a administrational discharge (this coming from a Marine that has been in out of boot camp only 3 months). His response "suck it the #$%! up, do your 4 years and get out!" This is the second request he has had in a week. They have all come in knowing what was expected of them. No one lied to them!
I'm not saying he should go AWOL or do something to jeapordize his group, I'm just looking for an explanation for his behavior. I would NOT agree if he did those things, but I DO agree with him changing his opinions regarding serious issues in life (such as war and being involved in it).
And on a side note....don't you think it would be easier (mentally) to serve your duty when you feel like you're actually fighting for something? This is a totally war-related comment, but I seriously disagree with this war and I think men and women are dying everyday for NOTHING. Not for our freedom and not for someone else's freedom either. This war is a political joke and all we have done is put our people closer to the bad guys so they are easier to hit!
Again, if you're in you have to serve regardless, but it would be hard to do something you don't believe in. That's all I'm saying.
I have to respectfully disagree, Deanna . This war is doing a very important thing. It is making a boat load of terrorist and would be suicide bombers go to Iraq to fight their Jihad, rather than trying to come here and use their terror tactics to kill Americans on our own soil.
We're sustaining casualties. It is a war. I am sorry more people cannot support our troops there. I wish more people would get over their political problems with this war and realize that any process that attempts to bring some kind of stability to the Middle East is going to be very long and very costly.
What our troops are doing there is making us safer here. They are fighting for our freedom. They are fighting for our freedom to live without the reality of daily bombings in our communities. They are fighting for our freedom to go to work and know we have a reasonable chance of coming home.
I think people forget too quickly in our country. For most people 9/11 was a media thing - like Katrina or the Tsunami. They didn't experience it, but they felt bad - now on to the next disaster.
For this New Yorker it was reality! One that still gives me panic attacks. I bless what our men and women are doing in the Middle East.
Sorry to get a little off topic, but I had to say what I felt.
Ame
And on a side note....don't you think it would be easier (mentally) to serve your duty when you feel like you're actually fighting for something?
Fighting for our country is NEVER easy regardless of your beliefs. 5 min after 911 happened most everyone had the same beliefs that something needed to be done, but after the smoke cleared a lot of people seem to have forgot their beliefs.
I hope you're not insinuating Kristie that I felt that way and now have forgotten my beliefs, because that's completely untrue. I was all for military engagement in Afghanistan at the time of 9/11 because that was where the Taliban was headquartered at the time. This Iraq war has nothing to do with 9/11 IMO. This was unfinished business on the part of the gov't. IMO and is getting no where. There is more civil unrest there now than there was before.
I'm sorry to have turned this into a war debate. I think debating issues like war and politics are often just a waste, because no one is going to budge on such strong issues.
Regarding the Marine that Melissa mentioned, I mean to say that it's crappy that in the job of being a soldier, you can't have thoughts of your own. You belong to someone else (the gov't.) and what you're told to do is what you have to do. Yes, that's part of it, but it would be VERY difficult to perform if you're beliefs are at stake. That's all I was saying.
I appreciate your response Ame and respectfully disagree But...I shouldn't have turned this into a war debate!
When you volunteer to serve in the military, you are obligated to follow the commands of your Commander-in-Chief. The military is not a democracy. You don't have a vote. You obey lawful orders. That being said....would I want someone fighting next to me who thinks that what he or she is doing is wrong? Would I want that person to be the one who's weapon will back me up in a firefight? If I couldn't rely on the person next to me in battle I'd be very worried.
Anyone who signs up, then refuses to do their duty should be chaptered out. They are a weakness to their company or battalion, and should not be allowed to reap the benefits of the military if they refuse to perform their job. Nate is registered here, and I've asked him to chim in on this when he is done taking care of some errands.
I'm (my dh rather) not insinuating anything, take it how you will. You asked "don't you think" and my dh answered. Why would you ask a question and then get offended when someone answers? As for 9/11 having nothing to do with Iraq....hmmm..its a war on terrorism and had Iraq cooperated with us and not been harboring the talaban terrorists, then you might have a valid argument. There are many Marines over there that don't believe in why they are there and I'm pretty sure that not too many more of them want to be there. But whether they like it now or not, it is their job. It is their job to follow their orders and protect their fellow Marines. And if their beliefs are not to survive and not to protect their fellow Marines then NO they should not be allowed to go over there. They should not be a Marine and they should have thought about that before signing their lives away and giving up their civilian right to complain about it!
When you volunteer to serve in the military, you are obligated to follow the commands of your Commander-in-Chief. The military is not a democracy. You don't have a vote. You obey lawful orders.
I agree 110%
Amen, Kristie!!! My husband doesnt agree with a lot of the things happening, but it's his sworn duty to follow the orders, and he'll do so. On the flip side, many people signed up pre 9/11, and ones who signed up post 9/11 thought they were fighting the terrorists, not going to war with Iraq. There is an 18 month gap there, so these kids got in thinking they were hunting Taliban, but ended up in a war they don't believe in. If they want out, there are ways to do it.
Regardless of when people signed up, they signed up to fight for our country. There are no side notes that say only if we as an individual believe in the cause will we fight. When you sign your name on the dotted line, you sign to do what you are told, when you are told.
*edited to space out my thoughts*
You don't have to like or support the cause for which we are over there. That is your right as an American. But don't confuse your lack of support and dislike of the cause for support of the military members that are over there. Those men and women over there deserve the utmost support and respect. They are over there making sacrafices that civilians will never understand, because they have been ordered to do so, not because they want to be.
Again, I agree Kristie. We were discussing it with a friend tonight (a SSG), he and DH both agreed that if they were injured they would want to get back to their unit not to complete their orders, but to fight with and for their fellow soldiers. Comradarie is a dying tradition in some areas of the military, but a GOOD soldier will do anything to help his men.
Oh, and back to the original topic AGAIN, being a soldier means giving up some of your freedoms. You know that when you sign up, but you CHOOSE to do so for the good of your countrymen. I can say things that are against the government or current administration, but DH cannot, because he chose to sign up and honor the rules of conduct for a soldier.
Respectfully, there is no evidence that Iraq was harboring Taliban terrorists prior to our invastion. There is a boatload of evidence of strong hostility between the Taliban (which ruled Afghanistan) and the Hussein regime, because the Hussein regime was secular and the Taliban, of course, was not. Every investigation done by every committee or commission since 9/11 has found no links between Iraq and 9/11 and no links between Iraq and the Taliban. The one report of a high Taliban official visiting Iraq has been disproved several times.
As for the hosts of terrorists going to Iraq instead of coming here, sorry, I don't buy that. Yes, there are hosts of terrorists in Iraq. And bombings and terrorist attacks take place in Pakistan and Spain. I doubt very much that our putting our troops in the thick of danger in Iraq is doing anything to prevent any plans for an attack anywhere else, even here. I am very much afraid that some attack will come, and because our homeland security is so poor, we probably won't be able to prevent it any more than we prevented 9/11.
Do you realize that since the 9/11 commission's recommendations, we still don't have all emergency responders on the same wavelength and able to communicate with each other? That was a major problem in responding to Katrina. And our borders are still not particularly secure, even with all the airport security. We have people like Senator Kennedy on a "no fly" list, or a 4 year old child, which doesn't give me much confidence in our lists. (Though it would be very difficult to secure our borders anyhow, given the size of them.) Our chemical plants and utilities are still not guarded or secure in the ways the 9/11 commission recommended.
It has only become a war on terrorism after a war on Iraq became politically unpopular. The first rationales were that Hussein had WMDs (proven false), and we didn't wait for the UN to do its job, and the UN inspectors were reporting over and over again that there were no WMDs and that they had pretty much been destroyed; that Iraq was developing nuclear capability, also proven false over and over; that Iraq had complicity in 9/11, also proven false; and that the Hussein regime was oppressive and murdered its own citizens - true, but by no means unique in today's world. Only after publication, over and over, of the falsity of the WMD, terrorism, and 9/11 claims, did this become a war on terrorism. The real war on terrorism was in Afghanistan, where we still have troops, and the Taliban government did support terrorists, and harbored Bin Laden, hence did have links with 9/11. But we pulled a lot of troops out of Afghanistan for the Iraq invasion, and the Taliban is regaining strength.
But, on the original topic, in any army but especially in an all-volunteer army, you go where you are sent and to the best you can while you are there, and you lose certain civil/civilian freedoms while you are in the military and on active duty. And yes, anyone who signed up since the invasion of Iraq knew or should have known of the strong likelihood of being sent there. The National Guard is another story, but you signed up for the National Guard in order to get certain benefits, and now you are paying for them. Harsh, but true.
(On a side note, the people who became the Taliban government are the people we armed and trained during the Russian invasion and occupation of Afghanistan to conduct guerilla warfare against the Russians, and after the Russians pulled out we pulled out and left the Afghani citizenry at the mercy of the people we had trained and armed.)
Ditto Ginny on everything.
And I feel like I'm being attacked here when I'm agreeing with everyone that once you're in, you're in and that's it!! I completely agree and have said that from the beginning.
How anyone feels about being there is definitely going to affect their performance, regardless of how committed they are. If you're really that against it and you're a soldier, yes, you suck it up and go, but aren't those feelings going to affect your performance?
That's all I'm saying. And Kristie, I just felt like you were saying that I was one of the people that "had the same beliefs that something needed to be done, but after the smoke cleared a lot of people seem to have forgot their beliefs." I'm not one of those people.
Ditto Ginny as well. And Deanna, you are absolutely correct about the morale when a soldier knows their mission is unjust. Many soldiers have gone and done as little as possible, just to pass their time. They no longer give a crap about anything, because they are damned if they do and damned if they don't so they protect their buddies, follow orders, but don't proform at their top abilities. That gets people killed, but it's unfair to ask a soldier to do something that he knows is morally wrong.
On the flip side, we throw a FIT over the "humiliation" of POWs, but do you think for a second they treat our captured soldiers well? I'd torture a prisoner too, if I'd just seen him shoot my buddy, and knowing that if the roles were reversed he would have chopped my head off. MY DH has already promised me he will never let them take him alive, he'd rather blow himselve up than give them the satisfaction of beheading him and posting it online. We want to "play fair", while the enemy is playing dirty. War is war, not high tea at Buckingham Palace.
I am getting confused between these war threads, but I think this is what I want to say here ;)
First of all, I agree that once you make the commitment to serve your country and obey your CIC, you are to fulfill that commitment to the best of your ability. We teach our children that once they commit to something, you let a lot of people down, including yourself, if you quit and do not fulfill that commitment. Of course, we also teach kids to follow their own principles and stand up for what they believe in, but it is no secret that when you join the military and commit to defense of our nation, that may (especially now) involve doing things that may go against your beliefs, so think good and hard before you sign up.
Second, call me the "Queen of Denial" when it comes to links between Iraq and al-Qeida. I cannot believe that there weren't any at all.
Third, before we ever went into Iraq I know I was thinking, and I seem to remember hearing in a speech of some sort, that this was the next step in the overall war on terror. It wasn't later after they had exhausted all other arguments for going there, as Ginny refers to.
Fourth, I agree that our borders are insecure, and that our nuclear plants and utilities are unprotected. I have a friend whose dh worked in nuclear plants. He traveled all over the country doing maintenence and repair, and he was very nervous about the remote locations and how easy it would be to attack one of them. He got another job close to home last year.
Communications are on their way to becoming clear and fully dedicated to emergency response. First, they have to clear out all other broadcast signals from the airwaves. That means TV. So anyone who receives TV signals with an antenna will need a converter, b/c TV stations are going to have to start broadcasting digitally leaving the analog airwaves for emergency use. As long as you have cable or satellite and receive your local stations through that, you won't have to worry. I believe that all TV stations have until 2008 to complete the transition. I have to look it up to be sure, tho.
And I do believe that the threat of getting attacked on our soil is reduced by maintaining the arena of battle in Iraq. It may not be eliminated, but reduced. There are terrorists everywhere, like ants at a picnic, and you never know where they will come out next.
The 9/11 commission determined there was NO connection between Al-Qaeda and Hussein, and Iraq had no part in the attack. As a matter of fact, many of the attackers were Egyptian. Why not attack them??
Iraq Ties
The only people claiming there were ties are Bush and Cheney (as well as their close officials)
Once again, Deanna, *I/We* did not attack you. My husband simply *answered* your question.
Lisa, I guess we will be fighting for that title.
I too, remember hearing many times that it is a war on terrorism from the very beginning. I also agree that our borders and airports are not as tight as they should be. I feel that security has lapsed greatly at the airports.
Regardless of what brought us there, we are there, our men and women are there fighting in the name of our country. Good or Bad, we owe our support to them. and whether we like it or not, we can't just pull out of there, a lot is going to have to happen before we do. And, once you sign a CONTRACT you are bound to that contract. Suck it up, serve your time and get out! It really irks me that there are so many Pansies that join thinking they will never have to work for their benefits and then throw a fit when they do.
Respectfully, Kristie, could you find a word other than "pansies". That is a negative appellation commonly, at least in recent history, meaning homosexual.
Please don't take offense to that Ginny.... It has never meant homosexual to my knowledge either. It has meant sissy or something similar.
Ditto Vicki.
Sorry if I offended anyone but I have always known it to mean sissy or wimp.
OK, there is partly a generation gap here - where "pansy" usually or frequently meant a gay man as I was growing up - and partly a "button", as my oldest son is gay so I am often overly sensitive to some words. I appreciate the explanation, which, I might add, my youngest son bore out in our conversation this morning after my post.
Glad to see Kristie and Lisa that I'm not the only one who believes we are safer here because of what is going on over there. To me it is simple logic. If they are attracted to and engaged in fighting us there, there's less of a chance for them to be here.
As far as links to Al Quaida, WMDs etc - it was time we did something about Saddam and his regiem. I'd rather be striking first rather than having to scramble to fight back.
I wonder if there are many safety measures that are in place that are just not public knowledge? I'd like to give the Dept. of Homeland Security a little credit ...
Ame
Ame, I would like to think that they do
Just a thought...but what happens now when one of these terrorist groups who are not in Iraq attacks the US now and all of our "manpower" is in Iraq? Just curious...
Thats a good question. I don't know. I'm just guessing but I would think they would activate more reserves and possibly a draft  ? But not all of our "manpower" is in Iraq. We have some in Afgainstan and other areas as well. There are also still lots of units that are stateside. I don't know numbers but I do know that we have more than what is in Iraq.
|
Members
