Giving soldiers the respect they deserve

The saga

from JoeUser Forums

There's been a very stimulating series of articles written by JoeUser bloggers with regards to the opinions of civilians on the sidelines making claims about what the military should and shouldn't do.  I missed some of the first ones (particularly a great one by Texas Wahine) so here's the series so far:

We need to help those Iraqis! (a civilian frustrated with those who oppose the war)

If you love war so much, why not go fight it? (frustration with non-serving civilians who seem to glorify war)

Why aren't you fighting in Iraq? (Bakerstreet responds to the above)

I dont' have to serve to support (same)

Are you a pasty pile of goo? (are people being overly defensive?)

One-Upmanship on JoeUser (whose opinions matter more?)

As a professional jerk, I'm a lot less sensitive to the feelings of soldiers or pro-military or anti-military people.  Simply put, I support the war. I support the job the military is doing. The job. Our soldiers are doing a job. I don't really care whether they like the job or not any more than I care whether individual policemen or firemen like the job they're doing. I only care that they do their job. 

That said, I can totally sympathize with soldiers and their families who see arm-chair generals, comfy at home, who treat warfare as little more than a sport for their amusement. I have seen this attitude in many pro-war people, a total disconnect from the hellish, dangerous, and staggeringly difficult times our soldiers face.  I can totally get what they're saying.  But I don't want to be lumped into that.  I haven't served in the military. I probably never will.  But I feel I do have an appreciation for the job our soldiers are doing even if I cannot even imagine what they've gone through.  Therefore, I make no bones that I support the job they've done.

Then again, being a jerk, I don't have any particular sympathy for the Iraqis. I would support bringing troops home IF there was the understanding that if Iraq fell into terrorist hands we would go in there and overthrow what they'd cobbled together.  Winning against terrorism doesn't mean we have to set up some sort of peaceful democratic state. Not in my opinion anyway. There's any number of countries that are in states of near anarchy.  What we have to work against are states with significant financial and material assets who support terrorism or who allow terrorists to openly organize and plan.  Hence, while I agree us leaving Iraq would likely result in a non-democratic government run by Shiites who oppressed minorities or even lead to civil war, I don't really care. I'd rather have our soldiers home.  IF that oppressive government started to support anti-US policies, pursue WMDs, sponsor terrorists, then we could go in again and take them out.

Of course, many of you reading what I just wrote probably are shaking your head at my naivete. Because you're right.  The US cannot (contrary to what some left-wing fringe Europeans think) just send the military in on a whim to overthrow countries we didn't like. Not until I'm emperor anyway. ;)   Therefore, the most balanced course of action is probably to stay until there's enough infrastructure in place that Iraq can move forward on its own and draw down troops gradually as they can.

politics
20,830 views 66 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Shoot! I knew I should have given mine a flashier title! HAHA! Nice post, though!
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yeah, chiprj, you wrote an excellent article on the topic.

Draginol: I appreciate the link, and the feature.

I don't think your opinion and my opinion on this is too far off. You said on my blog that you felt my final line (or perhaps my whole premise?) was unreasonable. You're probably right. It probably is unreasonable, but it is honest.

I think your description of my article was very succinct and just right on target:
frustration with non-serving civilians who seem to glorify war


That's exactly it. Emphasis on the words frustration and glorify.

But again, our opinions are fairly in line on this one (shocked, huh?). Excellent article...well put together, and a handy grouping of the myriad of current articles covering this topic.
The Political Machine 2024
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I haven't served in the military. I probably never will.

Probably? Are you contemplating enlisting? With recruitment quotas falling so short lately, I'm sure some recruiters would love to get their hands on you. With you being a very intelligent man who wholeheartedly supports the war, they'd love you.

The US cannot (contrary to what some left-wing fringe Europeans think) just send the military in on a whim to overthrow countries we didn't like. Not until I'm emperor anyway.

That was a good one Brad, you're a really funny guy sometimes.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I only care that they do their job. Yes, if only it was clear what the hell that job is."
Well balanced.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Probably? Are you contemplating enlisting? With recruitment quotas falling so short lately, I'm sure some recruiters would love to get their hands on you. With you being a very intelligent man who wholeheartedly supports the war, they'd love you."


If I recall correctly, by the height of WW2 they were taking men up to 45 years old. I need to go back and check, but I think if history teaches us anything it is if the situation is bad enough you can and probably will be drawn in one way or another.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree with what you said here. All to often we forget that we are merely opiners here. We aren't policy makers, politicians, and most of us aren't even among those carrying out the policies that are out there. We are merely a group of people with opinions and experiences.... and thanks to you, a forum from which to share them. In truth, no matter what we say about the war, we are all "arm chair generals". Even the people who blog here who are still serving are only in a position to share their views.

So, from one Arm Chair Sergeant (I'd rather think of myself in NCO terms) Jerk to another... Thanks for the Feature, the Link, and JoeUser in general!
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
What ParaTed2k said.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
DJBandit: Yeah, good idea. I read what you wrote earlier, and I think it was a smart choice to let someone with more sense and better writing ability speak for you instead of spouting the error-riddled, condescending crap that you initially posted.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
If I recall correctly, by the height of WW2 they were taking men up to 45 years old.


If they had the right credentials; later they limited it to 38, then discharged them a couple of years later.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Heres one that gets my respect, and admiration...

Link

I will be posting more on him. And writing an article for our local paper about him.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top


Reply By: rombios(Anonymous User)Posted: Wednesday, November 30, 2005fuck the soldiers ... they are murderers


And you have the right to say that because they do what they do. In Iraq before we went in if you had said that there you would be beheaded. Thats what makes America so great , you can even spew your hate and be safe because of those soldiers. BTW I have had no problem with killing when it was required. Hence what you say bothers me not. In fact makes me realize you are not nor will ever be a person to stand up and be willing to fight and die if required for what you belive in. In other words, a coward of words, hiding behind the anon of the internet. Don't let your hate build up to much, you may have to seek professional help for it.

Peace to you...

Another good reason to not allow Anon posting..
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Another good reason to not allow Anon posting..


My thoughts exactly.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
The last exchange between me and dharma on Tex's article (#35, #36) has caused me to give up hope of trying to find any middle ground. A depressing, futile discussion. Evidently we speak two different languages. I've lived my life around brave veterans who didn't like having to hear themselves lauded. We called it humility. Evidently now it just means lauding them is dishonest.

"fuck the soldiers ... they are murderers"


I figure you'd have to hire someone with balls to do that for you, rombios. Evidently you live in a world where paranoid people just sit and whine. No doubt you do have to worry about other nations bullying yours if people there are much like you...
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
>And you have the right to say that because they do what they do. In Iraq
>before we went in if you had said that there you would be beheaded

how many beheadings in Iraq before we went in 2003 IDIOT?
how about bombings?
may hem?

Women were walking the streets in JEANS when Saddam was in power. Crime was
almost non existent.

We just turned that place into a clusterfuck.


Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
>Another good reason to not allow Anon posting..

hypocrite. your version of freedom works when you have echo chambers not when
someone refuses to buy the b.s we are fed on tv daily.

sorry buddy. i refuse to hate Saddam because we are TOLD to
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes, robios can love third world thugs as long as they oppose the first-world leaders he hates more. Evidently it isn't thugs he hates, just particular cultures.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
fuck the soldiers ... they are murderers


Not even the most radical pacifist would stoop to this level.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
fuck the soldiers ... they are murderers


You're welcome, Robios
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
As a bit of background Rombios lives in a little third world country who he says was covertly fiddled with by the CIA some decades back. I forget which one. If he'd grow a pair and make a blog of his own perhaps he could write about why he thinks he does and people might understand him a bit better.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Women were walking the streets in JEANS when Saddam was in power.


This by itself is an absolute LIE! Show proof "i,d-ten t" (Sound or write it out!) During Saddams reign any woman caught outside dressed like that would have been stoned to death.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Women were walking the streets in JEANS when Saddam was in power.


Strange... I was in Iraq for a month in 91, never saw one woman in jeans.. or pants even... just Burkhas and veils.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
This by itself is an absolute LIE! Show proof "i,d-ten t" (Sound or write it out!) During Saddams reign any woman caught outside dressed like that would have been stoned to death


Actually it's fairly well known that women were allowed to wear jeans in Iraq before the removal of Saddam. Obviously devout muslim women would not wear jeans before or after Saddam. But to suggest that any woman caught wearing jeans would be stoned is pretty ridiculous. Before you accuse people of stating absolute lies you should do a little research.


"I am Shia, but I don't want to wear a scarf on my head," said al-Taee, dressed in bell-bottom jeans and a tight T-shirt. "And I want to be able to work and travel unrestrained. If I can't do it in post-Saddam Iraq, I will have to leave the country."
Link

Signs near the campus entrance state: "A [new version of the] hijab appeared in Iraq after the year 2000 in which girls leave part of the head uncovered. Although this is called the French hijab, it is made in Iraq and is widespread in institutions and universities. Therefore we address all believers. They should ask representative of the Hawza for their opinions about such hijab and whether it is allowed."

The sign then goes on to provide an answer from Ayatollah Sheikh Mohammed El Yacuby, an expert on social problems. "The woman who wears such hijab is not a real Muslim and she has no belief in Islam. There is no permission for this kind of hijab," the Ayatollah's response reads. The sign goes on to state that pants, jeans, or culottes are also not allowed.
Link

Increasingly, women feel pressured to don veils, both because bareheaded women are favorite targets for rapists, but also to avoid harassment from religious extremists. More and more mosques are turning away women not garbed in a head-to-toe abaya, and the Al Mustansirriye University in Baghdad has posted a sign ordering female students to wear full hijab head scarves and forbidding the wearing of pants, jeans or culottes.
Link

This would put women in Iraq at a disadvantage. Already it's not a good idea for women to walk the streets of Basra wearing jeans. Iraq may be slowly moving toward democracy but it's also edging toward a conservative Islamic state. And Iran is doing what it can to help it along that path.
Link
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
isn't that a religious problem more than it is a civil problem? Are there laws in the new constitution about women wearing jeans?

WOuld it have been preferable for the US to become a totatlitarian state since it took us a couple of hundred years to iron out civil rights?
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

Not even the most radical pacifist would stoop to this level.

Unfortunately, Parated2k posted an article where they did exactly that.  If you look at one of the pictures in that article, you will notice a brown ring on the butt of one of the protestors.  That is Rombios.