Do American troops "defend freedom"?

[esmith]

Well let's put is this way......have you every been spit on, or called baby-killers, or some other words that would probably get censored. There were times in our history, a very short time ago as a matter of fact, that the military was looked upon as sub-species by various so called "enlightened" citizens.

Why does things being better than it used to make our current situation good?

This can be explained with an analogy.
Like, Hillary Clinton would make a less corrupt leader than Hitler just because she didn't kill a bunch of Jews.
Does that mean Hillary would make a non-corrupt leader? No. It just means she's not as corrupt as Hitler.

Just pointing out that your statement "Well, when a middle class man in uniform walks down the street you get people stopping to shake his or her hand" was not always the norm. and since this thread is about the military and not about politics was pointing out the inconsistencies in your statement

 

[Valjean]

Tell me, do you honestly think military personal just sit around waiting for the order to shoot someone?
Sure sounds like.

So what do they do, then? Do you deny that their 1ry function is as enforcers; that they're trained to "kill people and break things?"

I remember when I was 13 a soldier came home to a church and was greeted so warmly and praised and practically worshiped. He didn't seem to understand how to receive it and instead said all he had done is join the military and do his job. I think he didn't expect people to so blindly respect him and straight up praise him just for simply being in the military.

Which is symptomatic of the massive PR campaign virtually sanctifying all things military.
It never ceases to astonish me, how an organization and ethos so diametrically opposed to Christ's teachings can be so obsequiously idolized by an organization ostensibly teaching an entirely opposite set of values.
How can a preacher rail against an 'abortionist' one minute and lionize a pilot who's killed a hundred foetuses -- along with their mothers and families -- the next?

Which shows your claim of military "worship" by the public to be a big steaming pile of bull ****.

--

-- Military discounts at businesses everywhere, free cab rides, free admission to museums, theaters, &c; free coffee and donuts? Nary an hour goes by without some TV or radio spot praising the 'sacrifices' of the 'defenders of our freedom'. People shake soldiers' hands and defer to them wherever they go. People give up their bus seats for them, they stand and clap when they show up at public meetings.
I'm expecting the next step will be an obligatory "PBUH" whenever the military is referenced.

 

[Valjean]

esmith said: ↑
Well let's put is this way......have you every been spit on, or called baby-killers, or some other words that would probably get censored. There were times in our history, a very short time ago as a matter of fact, that the military was looked upon as sub-species by various so called "enlightened" citizens.

I'm sure there were a few anti-military incidents involving returning Viet-Nam soldiers, but the purported widespread "spitting on soldiers" is largely apocryphal.
That's not to say that the anti-military sentiment of the "enlightened" citizens wasn't justified. It was an illegal war to begin with, and if you want to see how we were conducting ourselves over there, google some of the first-person testimony from the Winter Soldiers Hearings.
For that matter, take a look at some of the Youtube videos under: american soldiers killing afghan civilians , for examples of how the military's conducting itself today.

 

[esmith]

I'm sure there were a few anti-military incidents involving returning Viet-Nam soldiers, but the purported widespread "spitting on soldiers" is largely apocryphal.

Just relating personal experience.

 

[Revoltingest]

Just relating personal experience.

Details for the curious?

 

[Skwim]

As far as your asinine comment Skwim..... Yeah we have pride in the branch of the service we served in and do serve in. We were and are willing to put down our lives for our comrades and those that we were and are duty bound to protect. However, there were times that I wondered if there were those that really didn't deserve the sacrifices that were made for them; however we did our best and there are those that will continue to do what is asked of them.

Hey, if the article isn't devastating to your sense of pride, which appears considerable, or your pride in your grandmother, so be it. I simply figured you'd pick up on the fact that just because you serve in the military doesn't make anyone a hero, or even special. After all, many millions have served in the armed forces. In fact, during WWII about 12 percent of the total U.S. population, more than 16 million, were part of the armed services. To make hero grade means more than going through basic training, getting shipped overseas, and eating combat rations. Don't cheapen the idea of hero by spreading it around too thinly.

 

[esmith]

Details for the curious?

Flying home on leave. Had layover in San Francisco, stepped outside terminal to kill time and look around. A few sub-human species were outside and one of them had to regurgitate and I happened to be in the way. Continued on my way since I normally left non-threatening life forms alone.

 

[esmith]

Hey, if the article isn't devastating to your sense of pride, which appears considerable, or your pride in your grandmother, so be it. I simply figured you'd pick up on the fact that just because you serve in the military doesn't make anyone a hero, or even special. After all, many millions have served in the armed forces. In fact, during WWII about 12 percent of the total U.S. population, more than 16 million, were part of the armed forces. To make hero grade means more than going through basic training, getting shipped overseas, and eating combat rations. Don't cheapen the idea of hero by spreading it around too thinly.

I didn't mention anything about "hero's". All I said was that I and many past and present members of the armed forces have "pride' in our service to the country. For what it's worth I for one, and the majority of past and present service members do not believe that we are "hero's" for just putting on the uniform and serving our country. . I'm just glad that this country has come a long way from the 60's and 70's in their view of service members. If the civilian population wants to call service members "hero's" that's fine with me, at least it is the opposite of what we used to be called.

One other little bit of trivia in reference to your comment about my grandmother. There used to be a derogative comment that was associated with one's mother wearing combat boots, I hope you wasn't inferring that reference to my grandmother. If you were then it is possible that you may be one of those that I referred to in post #24

 

[Skwim]

I didn't mention anything about "hero's". All I said was that I and many past and present members of the armed forces have "pride' in our service to the country. For what it's worth I for one, and the majority of past and present service members do not believe that we are "hero's" for just putting on the uniform and serving our country. . I'm just glad that this country has come a long way from the 60's and 70's in their view of service members. If the civilian population wants to call service members "hero's" that's fine with me, at least it is the opposite of what we used to be called.

One other little bit of trivia in reference to your comment about my grandmother. There used to be a derogative comment that was associated with one's mother wearing combat boots, I hope you wasn't inferring that reference to my grandmother. If you were then it is possible that you may be one of those that I referred to in post #24

As I recall it, it was "Your mother wears army boots," and the old connotation of prostitute had been long forgotten. It was more of a friendly jibe.

 

[esmith]

As I recall it, it was "Your mother wears army boots," and the old connotation of prostitute had been long forgotten. It was more of a friendly jibe.

You probable do not understand that when I'm discussing issues with someone that is diametrically opposed to what I stand for and believe I have to exam everything said by that person in a highly critical manner and look for hidden meanings in statements, especially when the rules of this forum are explicit in certain matters. Now you may have intended it as a friendly jab, and I suspect so. However, you have seemed to hit a very sore spot in my character in that I served for 21 years in the military and take affront to anyone even attempting to demean members of the military; I had enough of that. What I'm saying is when you and others find fault with the men and women wearing the uniform of this United States, that fault is misdirected. . The military only does what the citizens of this country want by electing those that determine the actions taken by the military. So, feel free to find fault with your elected officials, not the military.
On other little tidbit of wisdom ......Those that have served, those that are serving, and those that will serve know that freedom is not free

One other thing, the original insult was " Your mother wears combat boots" and it may be old and now used in a humorous continuation , but one should remember that there are still a lot of us old farts out here.

 

[Skwim]

You probable do not understand that when I'm discussing issues with someone that is diametrically opposed to what I stand for and believe I have to exam everything said by that person in a highly critical manner and look for hidden meanings in statements, especially when the rules of this forum are explicit in certain matters. Now you may have intended it as a friendly jab, and I suspect so.

Thing is, I never used the phrase, "Your X wears Y boots." All I said was ". . . your pride in your grandmother," That you interpreted this to reference your mother wearing combat boots is quite extraordinary, to say the least. I suggest you ease up a bit a quit being so knee-jerk defensive.

However, you have seemed to hit a very sore spot in my character in that I served for 21 years in the military and take affront to anyone even attempting to demean members of the military; I had enough of that. What I'm saying is when you and others find fault with the men and women wearing the uniform of this United States, that fault is misdirected.

This is really getting odd, but just where did I find fault with " the men and women wearing the uniform of this United States"? And even if I did, are they really above criticism? Is everything they do and say sacrosanct? If you actually believe this then I honestly and very seriously believe you may need counseling.

One other thing, the original insult was " Your mother wears combat boots" and it may be old and now used in a humorous continuation , but one should remember that there are still a lot of us old farts out here.

Then you should really ease up and take the chip off your shoulder and ask yourself, "Just why am I investing what X says with so much power as to let it upset me? Is his opinion really that important to me?" Is my (Skwim) opinion THAT important that it will upset you if you don't like it? It shouldn't be, esmith.

 

[Valjean]

What I'm saying is when you and others find fault with the men and women wearing the uniform of this United States, that fault is misdirected. . The military only does what the citizens of this country want by electing those that determine the actions taken by the military. So, feel free to find fault with your elected officials, not the military.
On other little tidbit of wisdom ......Those that have served, those that are serving, and those that will serve know that freedom is not free

With all due respect -- and at the risk of sounding like a broken record -- I reiterate:
*The military does not follow the dictates of the people. It serves the interests of a corporate elite that is frequently at odds with the interests of The People.
*The People are largely ignorant of foreign policy and unaware of our military adventures. There is no "will" regarding situations the public is ignorant of, and no dictates.
*The US today is more an oligarchy than a democracy -- I presume you read my link, so you know what I'm talking about.
*Our elected officials are vetted before their names ever appear on the ballots. Those who aren't willing to play ball with the corporate elite find themselves starved for campaign funding and media coverage. Our electoral process is not a level playing field.

The military only does what the citizens of this country want by electing those that determine the actions taken by the military.

Just following orders, from a perceived legitimate authority, is not automatically moral. Your captain cannot take your sins upon himself. We are each individually responsible for our own actions.
A crime, even under orders, violates Principle IV of the Nuremberg Code. As a career military man you know this. I'd also cite Principle I: "Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment."

A crime is a crime. Moral conduct is the same on the battlefield as in your own neighborhood.

What I'm saying is when you and others find fault with the men and women wearing the uniform of this United States, that fault is misdirected.

When you strip away 18 years of socialization, religious instruction and moral teaching, to create the psychology necessary for an effective soldier, don't expect angels.
Soldiers are intensely loyal, altruistic and self-sacrificing, but it's a tribal morality that often does not extend beyond the tribe.

How can you deny that soldiers often behave execrably in the field? I mentioned the '72 Winter Soldier investigation. Watch the 4 part YouTube videos -- these men were not behaving honorably.
Fast forward 40 years. YouTube search: US soldiers killing civilians. -- What's changed?

War is immoral. How are it's practitioners and promoters not tainted?

On other little tidbit of wisdom ......Those that have served, those that are serving, and those that will serve know that freedom is not free

OK, I take issue with "serve." Service implies benefit. In my opinion, our current military is harmful, not beneficial. It's generated the very 'terrorists' it purports to protect us from. It's fomented fear and paranoia, and transformed the US into a police-surveillance state, and our empire has all but bankrupted the country.

I realize you probably find my rant infuriating, esmith, and for that I apologize, but this is how I and many others see things. I invite corrections if I've got things wrong.

 

[Revoltingest]

You probable do not understand that when I'm discussing issues with someone that is diametrically opposed to what I stand for and believe I have to exam everything said by that person in a highly critical manner and look for hidden meanings in statements, especially when the rules of this forum are explicit in certain matters. Now you may have intended it as a friendly jab, and I suspect so. However, you have seemed to hit a very sore spot in my character in that I served for 21 years in the military and take affront to anyone even attempting to demean members of the military; I had enough of that. What I'm saying is when you and others find fault with the men and women wearing the uniform of this United States, that fault is misdirected. . The military only does what the citizens of this country want by electing those that determine the actions taken by the military. So, feel free to find fault with your elected officials, not the military.
On other little tidbit of wisdom ......Those that have served, those that are serving, and those that will serve know that freedom is not free

One other thing, the original insult was " Your mother wears combat boots" and it may be old and now used in a humorous continuation , but one should remember that there are still a lot of us old farts out here.

Oh, now I want to call you a "lifer"!
But you get to call me a draft dodging hippie.

 

[Ultimatum]

American troops are paid to defend American interests.

i consider the source of the article and have only one response......bull****

Ah, of course, because deposing Assad must be the interest of all Americans!
I mean, they don't all really want to make the Middle East a greater ****hole that it really is do they?

 

[esmith]

Oh, now I want to call you a "lifer"!
But you get to call me a draft dodging hippie.

Yep, I sure was, and yes I can but with the old adage "with age comes wisdom"

 

[Revoltingest]

Yep, I sure was, and yes I can but with the old adage "with age comes wisdom"

And Social Security!

 

[esmith]

With all due respect -- and at the risk of sounding like a broken record -- I reiterate:
*The military does not follow the dictates of the people. It serves the interests of a corporate elite that is frequently at odds with the interests of The People.
*The People are largely ignorant of foreign policy and unaware of our military adventures. There is no "will" regarding situations the public is ignorant of, and no dictates.
*The US today is more an oligarchy than a democracy -- I presume you read my link, so you know what I'm talking about.
*Our elected officials are vetted before their names ever appear on the ballots. Those who aren't willing to play ball with the corporate elite find themselves starved for campaign funding and media coverage. Our electoral process is not a level playing field.

So, let me try to understand. You feel that the military does not follow the dictates of the people, correct? Would you then please enlighten us with an example of the military acting without orders from the Commander in Chief? Maybe you should go back to school and re-educate your knowledge of the Constitution under the War Powers Act and various other parts of the Constitution that you may be lacking in, say the principle that the military is under civilian control. Well now that we may have cleared that up(?) I would like to know how the few, the corporate elite, directly elect the President. Now, I readily admit that the voting public in general, is uninformed when it comes to electing a President. So what the President does or does not do with the military comes directly back to the voters that put that person in office, which eventually falls back to the "will of the people". It is not the military's fault that the voters put someone in office that uses the military in a way that some voters may disagree with and others agree with; for your edification this is how a Constitutional Republic works. However, I see your point that Presidential elections are won and lost on the ability of a candidate to raise money in order to get their agenda presented to the voting public (the agenda that people want to hear which is not necessarily the agenda of the candidate). At the present time I see no way to legally stop private institutions from supporting a candidate of their choice.

Just following orders, from a perceived legitimate authority, is not automatically moral. Your captain cannot take your sins upon himself. We are each individually responsible for our own actions.
A crime, even under orders, violates Principle IV of the Nuremberg Code. As a career military man you know this. I'd also cite Principle I: "Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment."

Unfortunately your idealist ideas of right and wrong when it comes to war does not allow you to see the truth. This truth is that the victors determine what a crime is. You also seem to think that international law is sacrosanct, it isn't. A country has to be willing to be subservient to international law, and the power that a country wields determines what they see as right and wrong.

A crime is a crime. Moral conduct is the same on the battlefield as in your own neighborhood.
When you strip away 18 years of socialization, religious instruction and moral teaching, to create the psychology necessary for an effective soldier, don't expect angels.
Soldiers are intensely loyal, altruistic and self-sacrificing, but it's a tribal morality that often does not extend beyond the tribe.
How can you deny that soldiers often behave execrably in the field? I mentioned the. Watch the 4 part YouTube videos -- these men were not behaving honorably.
Fast forward 40 years. YouTube search: US soldiers killing civilians. -- What's changed?
War is immoral. How are it's practitioners and promoters not tainted?
OK, I take issue with "serve." Service implies benefit. In my opinion, our current military is harmful, not beneficial. It's generated the very 'terrorists' it purports to protect us from. It's fomented fear and paranoia, and transformed the US into a police-surveillance state, and our empire has all but bankrupted the country.

When it comes to the US military and their conduct on the battlefield it all comes down to the UCMJ, and that is the only laws governing their conduct. At one time you seem to think that war is moral then a short time later say that it is immoral. I don't know how much experience or research you have done when it comes to operations on the field of battle, but from your comments I don't think it is enough to present a valid argument one way or another. You present a couple of articles and videos that tell of the "atrocities" of war that was committed during Vietnam. The only problem is that it only shows one side, not what may or may not have occurred that brought about these "atrocities". Now I don't condone the actions that were taken but I understand that sometimes the horror of war causes some people to act in a way that they normally wouldn't. Then there are those that use war to justify their own sadistic actions. Horrendous actions take place on both sides, some can be explained by the society that they were raised in, others by a total rage that overtakes them when they are presented with a situation that their mind can not deal with. Suggest you read Rudyard Kipling and his works on Afghanistan (the old saying of save the last bullet for yourself is truthful here). You might also want to look into the USSR's account of what befalls a Soviet soldier that is captured during the Soviets incursion into Afghanistan . To further your knowledge I suggest you pick up "With The Old Breed" by E.B. Sledge which covers his story during WWII in the Pacific. This short work of non-fiction may be able to show you what may happen to some during a war. No war is not a moral undertaking and the victor is always right.

I realize you probably find my rant infuriating, esmith, and for that I apologize, but this is how I and many others see things. I invite corrections if I've got things wrong.

No, I don't find your post totally infuriating in most cases, just not totally un-biased and wanting to live in an almost perfect world.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

These quotes are pretty much how I feel about the article:
Calling all cops and troops heroes insults those who actually are heroic – the soldier who runs into the line of fire to protect his division, the police officer who works tirelessly to find a missing child – by placing them alongside the cops who shoot unarmed teenagers who have their hands in the air, or the soldier who rapes his subordinate.
...
A social worker who commits to the care and advocacy of adults with developmental disabilities – helping them find employment, group home placement and medical care, and just treating them with love and kindness – is a hero. A hospice worker in a poor neighborhood, providing precious comfort and consolation to someone dying on the ugly edges of American healthcare, is a hero. An inner-city teacher, working hard to give essential education and meaningful affirmation to children living in neighborhoods where bullets fly and families fall apart, is a hero.

 

[Valjean]

And Social Security!

Pinko socialist!

 

[Revoltingest]

Pinko socialist!

Well, I am after all, a liberal.
(Although RF staff still expressly deny that I am.)
We of the classical variety are hard to categorize.