"They Died For Your Right To..."

[.Shane.]

I am all for freedom of speech. But not in the classroom. Students cannot state opinions contradicting proffesors for fear of failing, why should a math teacher be able to rant on politics?

ROFL, the story is FICTIONAL.

 

[Paradigne]

A soldier may be willing to do for his country, but that's not his duty. The soldier's duty is to kill for his country. Never forget that soldiers are killers.

Thers is a HUGE difference in some one TRAINED TO KILL and a KILLER...

 

[.Shane.]

oi! good reply.

True, though volunteering to get shot at is a far cry from volunteering to ask "want fries with that" incessantly.

Of course. My point is, its a choice. One they do not have to make. And, as we've discussed, one they often make for very selfish reasons (not that there's anything wrong with that).

I've never seen any very good numbers, and have seen other examples of similar "I never expected to actually be in combat" types in the active duty, reserves, and Guard components. But it's the same as for police - some do it to help people out, some do it because it pays the bills, and some do it because they're psychotic or tin-pot dictators. I can say that having helped run a MEPS for three years (where applicants become recruits and get shipped off to boot camp), my own sense was that the percentages were 60/40/1 and we tried hard to keep that last number down.

Sure, and again, my point is not that we should look down on military service or question the motivation. I'm just sick of the uber elevated status we often give them.

The military folks also keep seeing surveys saying that their benefits are in some cases roughly equal to what civilian jobs of equivalent qualifications and experience command. On the other hand, there are junior enlisted that are below the poverty line that get sent overseas into hot areas for six months out of every 18 or 24. Having full medical/dental, cheap life insurance, 20yr retirement and such does little for those folks.

Of course not, but that's deal they signed up for. In my job, I'm often oncall at crappy times, but I knew that was part of the deal when I took the job.

And, I'm not saying that servicemen are not entitled to their benies or in fact, don't deserve better treatment.

I know what you mean, but the military's conservative bias wouldn't seem to affect anyone, would it? It is like saying that most Hispanics are Catholic, or most doctors make a lot of money, or most lawyers are... ummm... familiar with the law. The media's bias is a factor because they're informing the Hispanics, doctors, lawyers, and military about what is going on in the world, and their bias gets communicated because their job is to communicate.

Its a different influence. ex-military will become future politicians. They cult-like worship of the military gives a tacit stamp of approval to a lot of these belief-system. They are often the only Americans a foreigner will ever meet. Military people are often cited as role-models and give speeches, etc.... Sure, not the same as the media, but they have a powerful influence.

 

[Paradigne]

oi! good reply.

Sure, and again, my point is not that we should look down on military service or question the motivation. I'm just sick of the uber elevated status we often give them.

I still think we owe them a few more years after the way the vietnam vets were treated...

 

[sysyphus]

Sure, and again, my point is not that we should look down on military service or question the motivation. I'm just sick of the uber elevated status we often give them.

I have more of an issue with how the uber-elevated status is used to ultimately exploit them into dying for any cause drummed up. And if they don't die but are mentally or physically damaged how the society who once trumpeted them ultimately ends up crapping on them.

 

[IglooDame]

Of course. My point is, its a choice. One they do not have to make. And, as we've discussed, one they often make for very selfish reasons (not that there's anything wrong with that).

I'm curious as to why you feel that it being a choice is such a big factor? I daresay we'd worship veterans less if they were conscripted.

Its a different influence. ex-military will become future politicians. They cult-like worship of the military gives a tacit stamp of approval to a lot of these belief-system. They are often the only Americans a foreigner will ever meet. Military people are often cited as role-models and give speeches, etc.... Sure, not the same as the media, but they have a powerful influence.

For what it's worth, the percentage of congressmen that have served in the military is dropping at a fairly brisk pace.

From Rollcall: "While the percentage of veterans in Congress in the 1970s was the highest in U.S. history — in 1971, 75 percent of all House lawmakers had served in the military due in large part to World War II and the Korean War — today the number of veterans serving in both the Senate and House has plummeted to around 31 percent."

And I'd submit that there's a counterbalance (to some degree) in the education system, particularly postsecondary education - college professors are famously liberal as a group, and doing a lot of molding of young minds as well.

 

[.Shane.]

I'm curious as to why you feel that it being a choice is such a big factor? I daresay we'd worship veterans less if they were conscripted.

I have more respect for conscripts because they were drafted and did their duty even though it was not their choice. You've been put at peril, not by your own choosing, and yet, you did your duty, you didn't run from it.

I just feel like making a big deal over people who choose a profession knowing the risks and, in fact, they may very well be seeking those risks, or if they're not, then they're very likely in the service for not the most altruistic or patriotic of reasons.

For what it's worth, the percentage of congressmen that have served in the military is dropping at a fairly brisk pace.

Sure, that's because, as you indicated, the WWII generation is dying off. I'd wager the % of the population w/ service time for that generation is an anomoly in our history, save the Civil War era.

And I'd submit that there's a counterbalance (to some degree) in the education system, particularly postsecondary education - college professors are famously liberal as a group, and doing a lot of molding of young minds as well.

In turn a counter-balance to conservative domination of MBA programs, corporate executives, and banking institutions, etc...

Like I said, you don't see me posting threads titled "OMG Conservative bias in the military is destroying the FABRIC OF AMERICA". It doesn't bother me, so long as people recognize it for what it is.

 

[Perfection]

Not necessarily true. Soldiers also perform humanitarian tasks, especially in situations where it is too dangerous for civilians to do so, or to help civillian forces with logistics.

Of course, but such activities are usually an additional task taken on and aren't the core reasons for the organisation.

Thers is a HUGE difference in some one TRAINED TO KILL and a KILLER...

Soldiers kill people, that's a fact, Jack!

 

[CaptainF]

I hate the militarist posturing of "I served and others died so you could say your crap". As if I have no right to say it because I do not give my life up to serve politicians.

Well, you fought and died, ostensibly for my rights, granted.

But the rights are still there, and i'm still using them, whether you lost your left arm or not!

Cha ching!

 

[sysyphus]

Add to that: scrutinising military actions is not only a right, but also a responsibility.

 

[Shadylookin]

The argument soldiers fought for your rights, but you shouldn't exercise them seems like flawed logic to me.

The support our troops bunk is getting ridiculous. It seems that you can't even criticize the military anymore without first acknowledging that you don't personally hate every single US soldier that ever existed, which should be obvious but apparently for some it isn't.

 

[Norlamand]

I don't have a problem with the argument, but I think it is over used by far. I find the constant reference to every service member on active duty as a "hero" equally over used and annoying. A guy who runs into a firefight to drag out a wounded buddy is a hero. Someone who spends a tour doing his job in Iraq is just a good soldier.

With respect to the "they died for your freedom\liberty\rights etc" argument. I don't have a problem with it as I generally see it as true. Just because the conflict doesn't directly impact my life doesn't mean that my future is independant of its outcome. British airmen dying in the Battle of Britain didn't directly impact my life, family or nation much if at all. The outcome of conflict in which they gave their lives did and does have a direct impact on the world in which I live and the life I lead. If they had failed and England had fallen the US would have been hard pressed to dislodge Hitler's forces from Europe, Russia would have faced the Nazi's with little help from the outside and the course of history would likely have taken a turn down a darker path. So I believe that many soldiers from many nations have died for my freedom. And I am eternally in their debt even if I am ignorant to their contribution to my life.
With luck one day many will see the deaths of those in the Iraq and Afghan conflicts in a similar light.

 

[MobBoss]

What do you think about the rhetorical tactic that "Soldiers died so you could be antiAmerican/criticize the President/post things I disagree with," etc.?

I think soliders have just as much a free speech right to say silly stuff as anyone else.

Especially, what is the opinion of military veterans on this rhetorical tactic?

Me? I dont like what people like Cindy Sheehan say, but she has a right to make a fool of herself just like anyone else.

I also fought for my right to point out the true silliness of the crap she puts out. Should I have any less right to voice my own opinion?

 

[Stolen Rutters]

This email is a tool.

This type of email is a very widespread way that "idea" marketing is done nowadays. Create an emotional and mental seed through the wordplay imagery in the emails so when it's time for the decision (a la "the vote"), you only have to say things like "Support Our Troops" and people will unconciously know which choice to make.

If you, the voter, believe in God, the storyboard professor just insulted you, and the so-called soldier defended you. As the creator of the story, you just planted the seed that the soldier is defending your right to believe in God. Avoid describing the professor or the soldier in too much detail so the reader can implant their own images in their head. It's more powerful that way.

Later, all you have to do is make an appeal to the godliness of your voters and they will be happy to support you because you will be portraying yourself as the soldier in the email and your opponent as the professor, making you the hero of the cause, the voters friend. The goal is to win the seat.

The focus doesn't even have to be God or soldiers. It just has to make your opponents look like the outsiders gunning for whatever the voters in your camp think is important in life (jobs, family, honor, God, whatever). Since people who don't believe in god at all are a much smaller voting block than people that do, you aren't really hurting yourself in the long run if the opposing character belongs to a small group.

My $0.02,
SR
Now playing single player Alexander, Monarch, Continents, Standard map picks, standard speed, 7 AI nations, Civ IV v1.61

-edited for length and clarity

 

[mdwh]

It's sad that not believing in God is seen as anti-American. It's sad and odd that defending people's freedoms by fighting in the courts is seen as bad, but doing it by invading other countries is seen as good.

You're right, it is contradictory if someone says "Soldiers died so you could be antiAmerican/criticize the President/post things I disagree with," if they then imply that the person *shouldn't* be saying those things.

It's also a fallacy to assume that all soldiers agree with your point of view.

It's like when people say "If you oppose these new anti-terror laws, it's an insult to victims of terrorism" - the fallacy being that those victims may also oppose the laws, and it's outright disgusting that other people claim to speak for them (this happened in the UK when The Sun used the photo of a survivor of the London bombings, with the phrase "Tell Tony He's Right", with respect to laws to lock up citizens for three months without charge - the guy they featured never said those words, never gave permission for his image, and disagrees with the new laws - http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1638838,00.html ).

 

[malclave]

But, what do you think of the subtext of the story, that soldiers are due extra veneration and authority because they served?

I think that, because that particular version of the story was related by a person associated with the military, the story included a pro-military moral. I've heard that story many times over the years... I'd say about 2/3 of the time I've heard it, the person knocking over the professor was a military type (SEAL, Ranger, Drill Sergeant, etc.). Of those times, maybe about 1/5 attached the moral at the end. I don't recall offhand any versions with non-military types attaching a moral, but most often the person in those versions was a football player. Since I went to Junior High and High School in Texas (and heard the joke there), it could be perhaps argued that any anecdote with a football player inherently has a religious subtext (football being the National Religion of Texas (tm)) and with a moral implicitly attached.

As far as "extra veneration and authority", I certainly don't believe veterans are to be "venerated". Extra "authority" would depend upon the subject matter at hand.

I do believe that veterans should be given due respect for their service, especially in times of danger. Some people on these forums may consider this to be "extra"... I do not, given some of the nasty comments made about them by others on the forum.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

But what respect does one show a soldier by blindly supporting any war without assessing its validity? If the cause is deemed unworthy, I think you show the soldier more respect by arguing to keep him/her safely off the battlefield unless absolutely necessary rather than by arbitrarily spending their life.

It's called loyalty. You obviously have no concept of it. It's one of those "intangible things."

 

[De Lorimier]

@Garric
I see that even though you edited your post some people already quoted your flame about French people that was once again directed at me. I told you in another thread, I reminded you via pm (after you sent me an angry pm for no reason), and I'll have to make it clear to you now.

I'm from Québec, wich is in North America, not France. You manage to sound both arrogant and ignorant when you try to flame me for my origins and can't even get it right. It's pretty pathetic.

Get that in your tick head once and for all or stop quoting me.

 

[Perfection]

I think soliders have just as much a free speech right to say silly stuff as anyone else.

I don't think that's the real question, the real question is do you really find the arguement silly.

 

[CaptainF]

It's called loyalty. You obviously have no concept of it. It's one of those "intangible things."

Does that mean that every conflict, no matter how arbitrary or stupid, is automatically a black and white fight against evil?