Absolutely disgusting!

[kis123]

Fine, I'll take it back if Kis makes a statement and doesn't totally contradict herself.

Don't bother!

 

[c7_assassin]

"Politically correct", kis. I called you "politically correct", not incorrect. That was kind of the thrust of my whole argument here, I'm sorry you weren't able to understand that...

The only thing you've shown me is that you don't have a real opinion, you just spew the rhetoric of both sides equally (even when it contradicts itself). Doesn't make you sound smart, but I guess you're never in an unpopular position.

 

[Skipadeedoodah]

Well they are entitled to their opinion....

They're entitled to their opinion because soldiers fought to give them that right.

Then we are all heroes. We get in cars and drive to work. Every time you get behind the wheel you are putting your life on the line. Extreme inturpretation yes. But true none the less.

Really, Ben? You don't really view the dangers a soldier often encounters as equal to the dangers you encounter driving your car. Come on now...

As for the post. Though I would not join that group. They do have a valid argument not every soldier is a hero.

Not every anything is a hero. They're not saying "some soldiers are heroes and some are not." They're saying all soldiers should be ashamed to wear their uniform. Big difference.

They are doing their job that is what they paid to do. There is nothing heroic about doing something you get a paycheck for..... A hero is someone who does something noble above and beyond what anyone would expect a normal person to do.

So, what if your job requires you to do something noble above and beyond what a normal person would do? That is exactly what the military is. If they joined the military and didn't get paid for it, would they be heroes for not accepting payment for their service? Or would they be selfish idiots for fulfilling a dream to defend their country while letting their wives work two jobs to feed the babies they made before they left? If they didn't get paid who would care for their families?? Or should they all just resign to a life of poverty and solitude?

My grandfather was in the marines did two tours in Korea, walked away with 2 purple hearts a silver star and NMCM. he will be the first to tell you he is not a hero and only did his job.

This is what we call modesty. I'm sure he still appreciates people respecting him for what he did and what he suffered.

She was just pointing out the fact that generalizations don't apply in this scenario.

When do generalizations apply?

And my point is that I think it's a brave stance to publically say something that is totally politically incorrect, because you believe it's right. That's why I have some respect for these people.

I don't agree with their views, but they have balls.

No - they have loud obnoxious mouths. Difference.

And now...



Clearly all this flag-waving is affecting you, you're waffling. If you're pro-war, don't try to hide behind "support our troops". If you're anti-war, don't try to hide behind "support our troops." Pick a side! I have more respect for the guys wearing those "disgusting" t-shirts, at least they're up front about how they feel.

And now...here is why you're wrong.

There is no reason someone can't respect our soldiers and support them by praying for them, sending care packages or writing letters without supporting the war. I'm not happy there is a war going on. I'm not happy people are suffering, husbands and daughters and mothers and brothers are dying and families are being tragically ripped apart. I'm damn sure that most if not all of the soldiers who are fighting this war on the front lines in Iraq, on a rooftop in Germany, or from a computer in Kansas, are not happy about this either. However, they have a job to do, and part of that job is keeping me and the people I love safe. THAT is the part of their job that I support, and I will do whatever is in my power to make their job just a little bit easier.

THAT is the difference between supporting the troops and supporting the war.

And seriously, the name calling? Come on. Not necessary.



The word hero is getting thrown around far too much in this thread. Few people, soldiers or not, display heroic characteristics or take part in heroic actions. I don't think a single person (besides badreligion) has said that all soldiers are heroes. The point is simple. Soldiers, as a whole, deserve our respect. (That is unless, of course, they do something terrible). The ones who are douchebags are douchebags. They aren't exempt from douchebaggery because they wear a uniform, but they also shouldn't be labeled douchebags because they DO wear a uniform.

If you don't want someone (soldiers) labeled something (heroes) because of their job (armed forces), don't label them (soldiers) something (douchebags) because of their job (armed forces).

 

[kis123]

"Politically correct", kis. I called you "politically correct", not incorrect. That was kind of the thrust of my whole argument here, I'm sorry you weren't able to understand that...

The only thing you've shown me is that you don't have a real opinion, you just spew the rhetoric of both sides equally (even when it contradicts itself). Doesn't make you sound smart, but I guess you're never in an unpopular position.

You forgot "idiot" which really showed me that no matter what I said, you were ready for a flame fight. I have absolutely no time for your nonsense.

I can be supportive of the troops and care about their outcomes WITHOUT supporting a war I never wanted to happen in the first place. I can be concerned when they have to watch their wives and kids on webcam instead of being with them. I can care that these families are suffering and that they're missing their mother, father, son, daughter, and even in some cases grandparents (some of who will not come home alive). What about that don't you understand?

Soldiers are human beings too; they do the job they do because they're sworn to defend and protect our country and they don't get paid squat to do it either. Should I care more about the soldier making $25K/year to defend this country or the private Blackwater citizen getting paid $100K to do the same job (after they're trained by the $25K soldiers)?

And as far as your definition of "smart" is concerned, tell it to my Masters degree. Do you have one?

I don't know how you can type what you do with a straight face.

 

[Frowg]

War

ok, really? Yes war sucks. No, the soldiers didn't start the war. They want it to be over more than you do. I know a lot of soldiers, my father included. To me, they are all heroes. World leaders and politicians, however, they are the ones who should be shot. You know why Alexander the great was so great? It was because he fought his own battles. I'll support a war when I see the president on the front line with an assault rifle.

 

[c7_assassin]

There is no reason someone can't respect our soldiers and support them by praying for them, sending care packages or writing letters without supporting the war. I'm not happy there is a war going on. I'm not happy people are suffering, husbands and daughters and mothers and brothers are dying and families are being tragically ripped apart. I'm damn sure that most if not all of the soldiers who are fighting this war on the front lines in Iraq, on a rooftop in Germany, or from a computer in Kansas, are not happy about this either. However, they have a job to do, and part of that job is keeping me and the people I love safe. THAT is the part of their job that I support, and I will do whatever is in my power to make their job just a little bit easier.

You're right, there's no reason a person can't do both...but if you're doing all those things, Skip, are you also going on peace marches, writing letters to your congressman, doing what's in your power to try to stop the war? Because if you're doing one and not the other, then you're supporting the war effort, whether you realize it or not.

That's the part I find sinister: somehow the government has managed to convince everyone that whichever side of the debate you're on, you have to "support the troops," which means helping keep their morale up, not saying anything too nasty about what they're doing...you end up making it easier for the government to wage the war you never wanted.

And even though the people in this anti-soldier group are wrong, I respect that they at least see through the lie they're being fed.

And kis, your Master's degree means nothing if you can't make an argument. Don't show up to a game without the equipment.

 

[Skipadeedoodah]

You're right, there's no reason a person can't do both...but if you're doing all those things, Skip, are you also going on peace marches, writing letters to your congressman, doing what's in your power to try to stop the war? Because if you're doing one and not the other, then you're supporting the war effort, whether you realize it or not.

That's the part I find sinister: somehow the government has managed to convince everyone that whichever side of the debate you're on, you have to "support the troops," which means helping keep their morale up, not saying anything too nasty about what they're doing...you end up making it easier for the government to wage the war you never wanted.

There is a big difference between allowing the war to continue and not trying to stop it (that's what I'm doing) and supporting it. I absolutely am not going to claim to be doing anything to try and "bring 'em home". But that's allowing, not supporting.

I don't think anyone HAS to support the troops. If you don't want to support them in the ways I described in my previous post, don't. But it is my opinion that everyone should respect them, regardless of their stance on the war.

 

[kis123]

And kis, your Master's degree means nothing if you can't make an argument. Don't show up to a game without the equipment.

I've made my argument clear to everyone on this thread but you; maybe you should check on your comprehension issues before you tell someome about not having equipment.

Stick to the topic at hand and try not to make this personal; it only makes you look ignorant.

And about that degree.......do you have one??

 

[Skipadeedoodah]

Stick to the topic at hand and try not to make this personal; it only makes you look ignorant.

And about that degree.......do you have one??

I agree with most of what you've said in this thread so far (if you can believe it 😛) but you're contradicting yourself there, kis.

 

[c7_assassin]

Well, since we're "sticking to the topic at hand," I'd love to tell you about my degree...

No, I'm in school. I've met more overeducated fools here than I ever thought I'd see in a lifetime.

Kis, I may be the only one here who's actually listening to you. So far you've said "the war is right" and "the war is wrong" in the same sentence. You're right, I must have a comprehension problem for finding that confusing.

Do you have a non-waffling opinion on the subject?

 

[kis123]

Well, since we're "sticking to the topic at hand," I'd love to tell you about my degree...

No, I'm in school. I've met more overeducated fools here than I ever thought I'd see in a lifetime.

Kis, I may be the only one here who's actually listening to you. So far you've said "the war is right" and "the war is wrong" in the same sentence. You're right, I must have a comprehension problem for finding that confusing.

Do you have a non-waffling opinion on the subject?

I've given you my opinion and I stand by it; you're the one who doesn't like or accept it. I haven't waived of waffled-you simply just don't get it; it must be that comprehension thing. That is NOT my concern--it is yours.

Re-read my posts and maybe you'll catch on. If not, continue to make jokes and hurl insults because that's a much more intelligent way to handle things right?

 

[c7_assassin]

There is a big difference between allowing the war to continue and not trying to stop it (that's what I'm doing) and supporting it. I absolutely am not going to claim to be doing anything to try and "bring 'em home". But that's allowing, not supporting.

I don't think anyone HAS to support the troops. If you don't want to support them in the ways I described in my previous post, don't. But it is my opinion that everyone should respect them, regardless of their stance on the war.

Skip, I think you might consider that allowing is supporting. And because it's July 4th weekend, I think I should mention that the founding fathers would agree with me here. If you feel your government is doing something immoral, it's your duty as an American to try to stop them. Just saying.

 

[Skipadeedoodah]

Skip, I think you might consider that allowing is supporting. And because it's July 4th weekend, I think I should mention that the founding fathers would agree with me here. If you feel your government is doing something immoral, it's your duty as an American to try to stop them. Just saying.

Then I fail miserably at my duty 'cause I ain't doin' shit. Doesn't mean I can't wish someone else would, and respect my soldiers at the same time.

Allowing is allowing. Supporting is supporting. If they were the same thing they'd likely be the same world (unless you want to get into the idea of synonyms, but still, allow and support are not synonyms...) so yeah...allow and support are different.

Now, I will say that allowing something could be considered a few steps away from supporting it, but the same thing? I can't agree to that.

 

[c7_assassin]

As far as the pro-war lobby is concerned they're the same, I meant.

If you're going to write to soldier, why not write to a lawmaker too?

 

[Skipadeedoodah]

As far as the pro-war lobby is concerned they're the same, I meant.

If you're going to write to soldier, why not write to a lawmaker too?

Cause I'm good at emotional stuff and crappy at political stuff.

My letter would say,

O hai - dis war is teh suk! Stopit rite nao plzkthxbai.

And they're not the same.

 

[c7_assassin]

LOL, what's wrong with that? We all have a right to our opinions, even the barely literate. (just look at kis...)

 

[c7_assassin]

That last part was a joke, BTW. 🙂

 

[kis123]

LOL, what's wrong with that? We all have a right to our opinions, even the barely literate. (just look at kis...)

So cute....so witty....did your mom help you with that??

It's a shame you can't disagree with someone without being so ignorant, but I guess it's the best you can do huh? With your limited education and life experience, looks like slinging cheap shots and calling me "barely literate" is the best you can do. Pity....so not worth the time I've already wasted.

Here's a nice chocolate bunny for you; take it, your juicebox, and blankie and hang out in the corner for the next 20 years or so. Maybe then you'll be ready to hold an intelligent dialogue with me. Then again, maybe not!

 

[kis123]

Oh, btw......that was a joke too!

 

[c7_assassin]

Aww, thank you for the bunny, kis! I appreciate you taking the high road and not stooping to my level.

We'll be over here discussing issues. If forming an opinion and then remembering the things you've already said (so as not to contradict yourself) is too much for you, please feel free to make another personal statement. Try to use the word "comprehension" more, it makes you sound smart.

 

[Artoo]

My thoughts on this matter can be pretty much summed up here:

http://ticklingforum.com/showpost.php?p=2185111&postcount=12

Free speech. It works both ways.

 

[Musicroxmysox]

They're entitled to their opinion because soldiers fought to give them that right.

I find it funny that we say the people who fought for our freedom (the Americans) in particular are the soliders. In reality most people who fought against the British at that time were really civilians fighting for their lives. Isn't that what a soldier really is after all. A civilian faced between life or death for their beliefs.

I'm not saying the soldiers didn't fight for freedom of speech and the freedom for each person to believe what they wish, but regular civilians have done and continue to do just as much for the rights they believe in. The honor of the spoils and enjoying them belongs to everyone, because everyone has technically played a part.

 

[Skipadeedoodah]

I find it funny that we say the people who fought for our freedom (the Americans) in particular are the soliders. In reality most people who fought against the British at that time were really civilians fighting for their lives. Isn't that what a soldier really is after all. A civilian faced between life or death for their beliefs.

I'm not saying the soldiers didn't fight for freedom of speech and the freedom for each person to believe what they wish, but regular civilians have done and continue to do just as much for the rights they believe in. The honor of the spoils and enjoying them belongs to everyone, because everyone has technically played a part.

They were only civilians because we didn't even have a country yet, let alone organized armed forces. The "civilians" who fought against the British were the closets thing to soldiers we had at that time. And they didn't just fight for themselves. Similar to our modern day soldiers, they fought for people who couldn't (or wouldn't) fight for themselves. Just because they didn't wear a uniform and belong to a particular branch doesn't mean they weren't soldiers.

I'd bet ya that the douchebags behind this facebook group wouldn't, for a moment, even consider being one of those "civilians" had they been in that position all those years ago.

 

[Fire_Sprite]

Actually the majority of the leaders and a sizable portion of the fighting force of the rebel army (Washington included) were former soldiers who had fought for the British during the French and Indian war.

 

[Synful Pryde]

With regards to the group, I find the "shame" bit and t-shirt slogans in very poor taste -- but the fundamental point against hero worship is an important one. This is especially true in the context of American culture, which places no small value on machismo... and has a deep-rooted victory addiction.

As for the military, I find these words by Johan Galtung to be insightful (emphasis mine):

The argument made here is not to abolish the military but to give it new tasks. That institution has had very bad habits in the past, such as attacking other countries and nations, and other classes, usually at the behest of the ruling elites, killing and devastating through external and internal wars. But there have also been virtues: good organization, courage, willingness to sacrifice. The bad habits have to go; not necessarily the military, and certainly not the virtues.

Let us give the military new tasks, substituting defensive defense with defensive means (short-range conventional military, para-military and non-military defense) for aggressive, external warfare. Pure defense provokes nobody and causes no fear, yet makes it clear that attacks will be strongly resisted.

(...)

The long-term goal is the abolition of war as an institution, like the abolition of slavery and colonialism as institutions -- an entirely realistic goal, but demanding, difficult -- and absolutely necessary. Of course, there will still be violence around, some still organized collectively as wars. But it will not be institutionalized, and not internalized. Nor legitimate.

What upholds war? Many factors, three of them being patriarchy (rule by the male gender of the species),the state system with its monopoly on violence, and the super-state or superpower system with the ultimate monopoly of the hegemons. Males more than females tend toward violence; and those who possess arms tend to think and act according to the old adage that to the person with a hammer the world looks like a nail. Incidentally, this is not necessarily so because such a person is violent, but because he has the use of military power as both a profession and monopoly and simply wants to be relevant.

(Peace by Peaceful Means: Peace and Conflict, Development and Civilization. PRIO/SAGE 1996)

What do you think?

Syn