LA Times op...'I DON'T SUPPORT our troops'

Colleges and Universities A-Z Service Academy Parents
41

<p>Jamzmom,</p>

<p>First of all, find me an insult, and I'll apologize. Me standing up and saying, "Okay guys, now make a point" is not an insult. </p>

<p>I've come here to see why people believe this article is wrong. I'm here to see people think about what they believe and why they believe it. I'm shocked at how little Americans, who come from a history of people who questioned every word of those above them, are willing to give unwavering support to their government and military.</p>

<p>The problem I saw in this thread was not that people disagreed with the article, but that they didn't know WHY (or at least didn't express why) they disagreed with it. It was a lot of mob mentality and "huzzahs" for the original criticisms. This is not what we, as a society, need. Especially not from those in the service, which can be so easily abused by politicians (like Clinton wagging the dog.) </p>

<p>For the record, I don't have many strong convictions. I fear them, because they usually turn from conviction to dogma. One, however, that I do find important to my schema is questioning my own beliefs and ideas. I'm definitely Millsian (JS Mill) in that respect. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I just don't want to see these kind folk belittled in any way.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Telling them to think about the whys and hows is belittling? If so, then we're in a world of crud in the States. Nobody deserves a "get out of jail free card" in a democracy, not even the soldiers.</p>

42

<p>"I'm shocked at how little Americans, who come from a history of people who questioned every word of those above them, are willing to give unwavering support to their government and military."</p>

<p>You do realize you're in a "Service Academy Parents" forum, right? The majority of people in this forum think alike and have the same convictions; hence the "unwavering support" I am sure if you were to post this same post in a different forum you would get a vastly different response.</p>

<p>"The problem I saw in this thread was not that people disagreed with the article, but that they didn't know WHY (or at least didn't express why) they disagreed with it"</p>

<p>Why can't someone have an opinion "just because" they feel that way? I don't necessarily have any reason for believing in a higher power or any specific scientific evidence that one exists, but I believe because I want to and it provides me with comfort and guidance in my life.</p>

<p>"This is not what we, as a society, need. Especially not from those in the service, which can be so easily abused by politicians (like Clinton wagging the dog.)"</p>

<p>Can you clarify further please. What is it that we don't need, especially those in the service. I don't quite understand your statement. Thanks.</p>

43

<p>
[quote]
You do realize you're in a "Service Academy Parents" forum, right? The majority of people in this forum think alike and have the same convictions; hence the "unwavering support" I am sure if you were to post this same post in a different forum you would get a vastly different response.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well then jeez, shouldn't you guys be the more critical of where our politicians send our troops? Shouldn't you be more critical of the Pentagon and it's idiotic choices? Shouldn't you be more critical of the idiots who do stupid stuff like Abu Ghraib and make a bad name for your children?</p>

<p>Shouldn't you be all the MORE critical because your child is likely to be sent somewhere?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Why can't someone have an opinion "just because" they feel that way?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Because then anything goes. If I just "feel like" hating [fill in ethnic group here] without a good reason, what's to stop me? Humans are supposed to be rational, so let's act like it. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Can you clarify further please. What is it that we don't need, especially those in the service. I don't quite understand your statement. Thanks.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>We don't need voters and constituents blindly following their politicians to whatever the battle de jure is. Clinton was able to make some pretty poor military decisions in large part because accountability for the executive is pretty low. Bush seems to have even less accountability woes. This is BAD. This is what leads to stupid conflicts like Vietnam.</p>

44

<p>Go away for a few days and look what kind of mess ya'll get yourself into . . . too late for me to jump in here except that: Isn't Joel Stein the guy who appears on the "E" channel form time to time. I think he appears in a pontifical sort of way offering observations on what a silly decade the '70s were when, in fact, he was not born until 1971.</p>

<p>He is an entertainer. A sort of a provocateur. [Except that he is not inciting others to commet illegal acts.] In other words, isn't he doing his job?</p>

<p>UCLAri. Your observations are valid.
KP. Meant to say this earlier. JAG is a great experience [aren't you in medical school?]; FAST experience, much faster than you would get in a law firm. But I digress. </p>

<p>Isn't it a Christian principle [oh, boy, another great topic] that one may love the sinner but not the sin? [I think that is the reasoning vis-a-vis homosexuals.] Thus, I think it is possible to support the person and not the performance. To believe otherwise would alienate, for example, those children who love their parents for being great parents when that individual otherwise acts irresponsibly to a marriage, e.g. when a man who is a great dad strays outside the marriage. Can't one continue to love the father that strays from the marriage?</p>

<p>Many, many people in this country do not seem to hold politicians accountable anymore. This could be characterized as: "Dagnabit, as long as you are anti-abortion and pro-gun, I vote for the Republican. It doesn't matter what fiscal irresponsibilities you may have imposed on the country, I vote for Republicans." Alternatively, "Darn-it, as long as you are pro-abortion and anti-gun, [and something other than a Republican] I will vote for the Democrat. I don't care about your failures as a legislator, I vote for Democrat." </p>

<p>As I have taken to saying, what most people don't understand is that Democrats are the new Republicans. [Who exactly has been running the country for the past decade, more or less, and how bloated has the federal government become?]</p>

<p>A compelling argument may be made that the post-war [remember "Mission Accomplished"] management of Iraq has been a collosal failure. The premises for invading Iraq have been largely discredited and no clear path for withdrawal has been offered. [What is victory?] Still, the American public accepts the pablum once again that: "Victory is right around the corner." Still, the Americna public refuses to demand that the politicians answer for the billions and billions of dollars that have been wasted in Iraq. [$200B to rebuild Iraq and no money to rebuild New Orleans?]</p>

<p>The troops are in-country for political reasons. They are doing their job. It is entirely possible to support the solders who are doing their job while not supporting the way the result is being managed. </p>

<p>UCLAri merely asks for rational, cogent explanations. [But that may be waaay too much to ask of bored adults who post to a college website.] He is right, calling names does not seem to further your argument. [Let's see, was it about a month ago that somebody attacked my writing by hoping that I wasn't filling my mid's head with this cr*p; accompanied by similar bloviations that did not counter the substance of whatever it was that I was writing.]</p>

<p>Remember, UCLAri, best to keep it light and frothy. Kind of like a milkshake. Lots of air and only bit of substance. This is not a maltshake kind of website. </p>

<p>Beside, I kind of like J. Stein's observations in general; silly as he may be.</p>

<p>Okay, guess it wasn't too late to jump in here.</p>

45

<p>"Taffy, some of us had flags long before 911 darlin'. Patriotism doesn't always just pop its head up in the middle of chaos. Maybe you just didn't notice it before all the magnets."</p>

<p>Sept 11th, 2001, i woke up, having 4 US flags in my room (of varying sizes). They are still there, and I didn't have to raid walmart to stock up.</p>

46

<p>"Shouldn't you be more critical of the Pentagon and it's idiotic choices? Shouldn't you be more critical of the idiots who do stupid stuff like Abu Ghraib and make a bad name for your children?"</p>

<p>Ah, but I don't believe that they made "idiotic choices" and I don't believe they are "idiots." This is the fundamental difference between us. I would debate you on Abu Ghraib, but it is beyond the discussion of this thread.</p>

<p>"Because then anything goes. If I just "feel like" hating [fill in ethnic group here] without a good reason, what's to stop me? Humans are supposed to be rational, so let's act like it."</p>

<p>Having an opinion and "anything goes" are two completely different things. Humans have free will, and with that comes the ability to form your own opinions. You don't necessarily have to have reasons for those opinions, but luckily we have critical reasoning skills which gives us the ability to form "informed opinions." Your example is a bit far stretched as most would agree that hating an ethnic group is morally repugnant. However, there is nothing to stop someone from forming those opinions, it is what one does with those opinions that it becomes a problem. One of the first things I was taught in medical school was to realize my own biases. It isn't necessarily wrong for me to have those biases, but I must realize that I have them if I am to be an effective caregiver. As an example I will use the catholic physician who is against birth control. It is fine for him/her to have that belief; however, to impose that belief on the patient is unethical and it is the physicians ethical duty to find a physician who will provide birth control if so requested by the patient. (I think I may have gotten a bit off topic here, sorry)</p>

<p>"We don't need voters and constituents blindly following their politicians to whatever the battle de jure is."</p>

<p>This is obviously not the case. I don't remember the exact count from the most recent presidential election, but it was darn near 50/50. I propose to you that that in no way constitutes "voters...blindly following their politicians...". Accountability for the executive branch is 100%. There is only one person, that person is either elected or not elected. There is also the US Congress and the Judiciary who check the power of the executive branch. To me that sounds like pretty good accountability. If the people of the United States don't like what the government is doing they have an election every two years to make changes.</p>

47

<p>dangit bill, i missed your post before i posted again. oh well. yes, i'm in med school, although I did consider JAG for about a nanosecond :) haha. </p>

<p>I always enjoy everyone's input to the talk du jour. Stimulating debate always keeps the brain cells working, plus it beats reading about some of the more obscure medical conditions. (I can look it up in the future if you ever come in with something crazy, my brain is only so big)</p>

48

<p>Ugh, I keep trying to answer these posts well, but the dumb site is not letting me copy or paste. What is up with this place lately?</p>

<p>I'll be back later when CC gets its act together. I'm not copping out, I'm just tired of this annoying site not working properly.</p>

49

<p>There's more money in being a doctor anyway and everybody loves you to boot! I am envious . . .</p>

<p>Of course, then UCLA goes and does exactly what he criticizes others for doing: calling names. tsk, tsk.</p>

<p>I, for one, wouldn't exactly blame the Pentagon. The Pentagon "idiots" are carrying out Presidential policies. Blame, if it is to be placed, should be placed appropriately. Many, many investigations that I have been involved with were not carried out as well as they could because of directives from above . . . or, "conveniently" a lack thereof in the case of Abu Ghraib that allows for plausible deniability. I just feel sorry for the grunt that takes the blame. . .</p>

50

<p>Is it possible to support the troops and not agree with "Iraq"?</p>

<p>I have been a registered Republican since age 18.
I support the troops.</p>

<p>I have voted 3 times for a Republican candidate for President, 3 times for a Democrat.
I support the troops.</p>

<p>I agree with the decision to go into Afganistan post 9/11, hunt down al-queda and anyone who would support or harbor them. If any other country supports or harbors that organization I support doing the same with them.
I support the troops.</p>

<p>I did support the invasion of Iraq in 2003 based on the information made available to me about the imminent threat of WMD's from Saddam's regime. Based on what I now know about that "WMD" "threat", I believe the invasion to be a mistake based on bad intelligence (blame whom ever you want). Nevertheless, we are there now and have to deal with the reality of the responsibility we bear to help the Iraqi people.
I support the troops.</p>

<p>I support the war on terror, but good AND bad decisions are made in time of war by well meaning people.
I support the troops.</p>

<p>My daughter has made the decision to become one of our troops.
I support the troops.</p>

<p>Yup, it's possible.</p>

51

<p>I don't have time to give an adequate response, but I would like to give UCLAari, Bill, and Shogun a big thanks for being informed and expressing the opinion of at least half of America and most of the international community.</p>

<p>In the meantime, just one question: Why did Secretary of State Colin Powell resign at the end of mr. bush's first term in office?</p>

52

<p>Here is the deal. In the United States we live in a Republic. We elect our leaders and they make policy and make laws. There are people who volunteer to defend that process and the policies of those elected -- with their lives if necessary. There is no longer a draft in the United States so all of those people volunteer. I think those people are pretty cool.</p>

<p>Title 10 of the US Code, which was written and passed by our elected representatives in the House of Representatives and the United States Senate and signed into law by the President, (Not this one, or the one before, but originally by President Grant in 1874, with subsequent revisions) formally codifies the organization and chain of command of the United States Military. </p>

<p>In short Title 10 says, the President of the United States (the guy getting the most electoral votes every four years) is the Commander-in-Chief, and because he has sworn to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, if he thinks the best way to do that is to send troops to fight in Iraq or Bosnia or anywhere else, he can do it within limits.</p>

<p>And you know what, those troops have to go because that is what they signed up for, they signed a contract and swore an oath. Now if they don't want to go for whatever reason, like with any contract, they can back out, but there are consequences. </p>

<p>Your right, nobody deserves a get out of jail free card in a democracy, but the thing is, the military is doing what the Democracy is telling them to do. Another thing, in a democracy, opinion polls don't count --votes do. So, until the voters decide they want a change, which they very well might do, the policy is what the policy is.</p>

<p>Enough with the civics lesson.</p>

<p>After re-reading the op-ed, I think what bothers me most is that his syllogisms are flawed and he passes them off as categorical absolutes. Has he considered that men and women who join the military are not “ignoring their morality” and “signing up to be a tool of American imperialism”, but rather making the moral choice to individually serve the collective will of the Democracy? I doubt it.</p>

<p>To follow his logic, he supports the destruction of local economies because his newspaper accepts advertisements from Wal-Mart.</p>

<p>Its late, I'm going to bed. Good night.</p>

53

<p>Ooooo. Ya'll have been busy while I was sleepin'! :) I do believe that there is enough infomation to answer UCLA concerns now. Good good debate guys!</p>

<p>"For the record, I don't have any strong convictions...." UCLA said. This is what sets our kids apart. Aplause!! Someone has to step up to the plate and make a stand for just causes. Not all people are meant to be leaders.</p>

<p>When I used the word "belittle", I am doing so with cause as UCLA is using assumption towards the people on this thread. He/She has assumed that no one thinks about the whys & hows or what we as individuals believe or don't believe. UCLA also suggests that we should be more critical of our "idiot" run Pentagon. Another assumption. </p>

<p>The long & short of it, we knew exactly why we liked or disliked the article. UCLA assumed we didn't. I agree alot with what Ann had posted earlier. Silence sometimes really is golden & I think I'll shut-up now. I love you Taffy. :)</p>

54

<p>I just noticed that UCLA has 2,300+ posts in less than a year. Over 200 per month! TEN a day! </p>

<p>UCLA, you live in Japan? Why is that and why do you have nothing better to do than to provoke discussion?</p>

<p>JM, you have some serious competition here! Are you going to let this whippernapper ["A 'whippersnapper' is generally thought to be an impertinent young person, usually a young man, whose lack of proper respect for the older generation is matched only by his laziness and lack of motivation to better himself. Though "whippersnapper" originally referred to a young man with no visible ambition, the term has changed somewhat over the years, and today is more likely to be applied to a youngster with an excess of both ambition and impertinence."] get the best of you?</p>

55

<p>Bill,</p>

<p>You said:</p>

<p>
[quote]
Of course, then UCLA goes and does exactly what he criticizes others for doing: calling names. tsk, tsk.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What name calling? Show me where I name called. I said that the SITE is being stupid. Some coding issue is making it work funny with my browser. Other than that, where did I resort to an ad hominem? I WILL apologize promptly.</p>

<p>If not, huh?</p>

<p>
[quote]
I just noticed that UCLA has 2,300+ posts in less than a year. Over 200 per month! TEN a day!</p>

<p>
[quote]
UCLA, you live in Japan? Why is that and why do you have nothing better to do than to provoke discussion?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First of all, why does it matter how much I post? It's a hobby of mine. It's really none of your business, is it?</p>

<p>That said, I teach English here. Again, however, why does it matter?</p>

56

<p>LOL Bill. And Yikes! He wins in that context. I can't compete with those kind of manic posting behaviors. Gotta leave the computer sometimes to eat and take a shower. </p>

<p>He says he's a student over there studying economics on his website.</p>

57

<p>
[quote]
UCLA said. This is what sets our kids apart. Aplause!! Someone has to step up to the plate and make a stand for just causes. Not all people are meant to be leaders.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I tend not to learn toward convictions because they oftentimes turn into dogma. I am very much a believer in always questioning my own beliefs and opinions, no matter how sacred. That's why I tend to say I don't have too many strong convictions. I never said I have none, you misquoted me. And then you ran with it. I can't say I'm not slightly miffed. </p>

<p>
[quote]
When I used the word "belittle", I am doing so with cause as UCLA is using assumption towards the people on this thread. He/She has assumed that no one thinks about the whys & hows or what we as individuals believe or don't believe. UCLA also suggests that we should be more critical of our "idiot" run Pentagon. Another assumption.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is the same Pentagon that is keeping faith in failed missile defense technology. This is the same Pentagon where cost overruns are epidemic, yet our soldiers aren't given the body armor they need to survive.</p>

<p>I'm sorry, but why shouldn't we be critical of the Pentagon? It's a civil service, that's it. </p>

<p>
[quote]
The long & short of it, we knew exactly why we liked or disliked the article. UCLA assumed we didn't. I agree alot with what Ann had posted earlier. Silence sometimes really is golden & I think I'll shut-up now. I love you Taffy

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How am I supposed to know that you have a logical reason behind it if you don't express it? If people don't stand up and make good logical rebuttals, how can we know he's wrong?</p>

58

<p>
[quote]
LOL Bill. And Yikes! He wins in that context. I can't compete with those kind of manic posting behaviors. Gotta leave the computer sometimes to eat and take a shower.</p>

<p>He says he's a student over there studying economics on his website.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Who's making assumptions now? I don't spend a whole lot of time every day on the site. I post in between teaching classes. I maybe, at most, spend 1 hour a week posting. My job isn't exactly the busiest in the world...</p>

<p>But still, I would appreciate it if you guys didn't bring my personal life into it. I don't really see how it's relevant. I personally find it rude.</p>

59

<p>Your post of yesterday at 11p [#43]</p>

<p>"Shouldn't you be more critical of the Pentagon and it's idiotic choices? Shouldn't you be more critical of **the idiots **who do stupid stuff . . ."</p>

<p>In your first sentence, you label the Pentagon as an institution, i.e. use of the word "it's idiotic choices."
Use of the word "who," however, is generally used in reference to individuals or groups of individuals. This interpretation is supported by your use of the word word "the" as in "the idiots" a label you are applying, presumably, to Pentagon personnel as a group.
That is name-calling, i.e. pejoratively labeling a group of individuals. What qualifies you to call them "idiots?"<br>
Apology? [I am not an English major or teacher, so criticize my analysis to your heart's extent. I still think you are name-calling.]</p>

<p>I am curious as why, when some people are asked about what they do or why they post, they take it as a big-time personal insult. Nothing personal. I don't know you, won't ever know you, and don't care to know you. Just gives some perspective to your rantings. </p>

<p>If you view this as a "hobby," then you have other issues that none of us are qualified to address. Get some sunshine.</p>

60

<p>I didn't mean it as a slam towards you in any way! Its your website. You really are some kind of serious guy aren't you? Smile a little. You think deeply & I do appreciate that. You're a student and a teacher. You're dedicated. That deserves applause as well. You said "I'm sorry, but why shouldn't we be critical of the Pentagon? It's a civil service, that's it." Did I miss something that says we are or aren't? So the debate continues but there won't be a winner or loser. You've made some good points but there's probably not going to be some grand awakening here. I didn't care that the guy's article was right or wrong. He is a hollywood reporter not some great mind to look up to.</p>

<p>"How am I supposed to know that you have a logical reason behind it if you don't express it?" Again, what do you seek here? I'm not the only one confused. </p>

<p>To go totally off subject. You play WOW. My son is a fanatic with that game. Don't know too many kids out there who play. Fun to watch the characters.</p>