Giving soldiers the respect they deserve

The saga

Published on November 29, 2005 By Draginol In Politics

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.

Comments (Page 4)

davad70

on Dec 01, 2005

On top of which I wouldn't believe any thing from SF. Mine's from wikipedia, an unbiased site. Too bad you can't say the same about SF. And your 3rd one? By Gregory Elrich? A self proclaimed "activist?

You still insist that women would be stoned to death for wearing jeans in Iraq while Saddam was in power?

I never said anything about women's rights in general, I was just correcting your ridiculously false statement about women wearing jeans. In your post you referred to #30, I don't see anything about women wearing jeans.

Dr Guy

on Dec 01, 2005

You still insist that women would be stoned to death for wearing jeans in Iraq while Saddam was in power?

And he never said that. Better re-read his assertion, and your replies.

bakerstreet

on Dec 01, 2005

I think it is cute how davad thinks freedom in the hands of the people is only good if those people have the same values as he does. I guess we would have been better off for a liberal tyrant for the 200 years it took us to get civil rights downpat in the US. All those years we didn't let women vote would have been better spent under someone like Hussein, I guess.

Again, Liberals just looooove their dictators as long as their values are the ones represented. Jeans on girls must make all those mass-killings, amputations, shoving people off buildings, etc., worthwhile. Hats off again to the grand tunnelvision of Liberalism...

davad70

on Dec 01, 2005

And he never said that. Better re-read his assertion, and your replies.

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.

Ummm...yes he did.

I think it's cute how you try to put words in people's mouths. I've never said, nor implied such things. All I said was that it is not true that a woman would be stoned to death for wearing jeans when Saddam was in power.

dharmagrl

on Dec 01, 2005

You just have such a jaded, hippy-bullshit bias against anything that you have to call it something else to stomach it

I say patriotism, idealism, and you hear an insult

You're a mind reader now too, huh? You KNOW what I'm thinking?

FYI, I DON'T hear an insult when you say patriotism, and I never did. You act as if patriotism is a dirty word to me, and that's not how it is. My stance was, is, and will be that patriotism plays a smaller part in SOME people's motives for joining the military than you might believe.

But go ahead and villify me, Baker. Make me out to be jaded and nihilistic if it makes you feel better. Tell yourself that I have a hippy-bias if you want. I really don't give a rat's behind.

bakerstreet

on Dec 01, 2005

You're the one that likened patriotism to wanting to go to war, dharma. I've not put words into your mouth any of the time you've been accusing me of it. If you are vague and not meaning what you say, that isn't my fault. When someon throws up their hands as if to say "Don't you dare accuse my husband of patriotism", one gets the idea that you don't think much of the concept. When you say:

""I'm simply saying that to tar every single service member with a patriotic brush is an error. Some people, like my husband and Sergeant Neale, go to war because that's part of their job, not because they want to. "

It seems pretty obvious that you are comparing patriotism to warmongering. I have a feeling every patriot who ever lived would have rather been at home with their wives than at war. The fact that they keep their commitment and serve their country anyway is what makes them patriots. Could it be, waaaay back in the back of your mind, that you might resent it if someone deemed another obligation greater than that of home and family?

Harsh question? Maybe, but you don't usually react so close-mindedly to ideas like this. For some reason, you seem dead set on equating granting soldiers 'patriotism' or 'idealism' to glorifying war. When I read what you say about how you'd deal with anti-war protesters on other blogs, the two sides of you just don't seem to jive.

"I think it's cute how you try to put words in people's mouths. I've never said, nor implied such things. All I said was that it is not true that a woman would be stoned to death for wearing jeans when Saddam was in power."

davad, you were the one looking fondly back to the hussein days as if women wearing jeans was some big friggin point. YOU WERE THE ONE trying to make the point that democracy was somehow failed because women couldn't wear jeans.

What other choice does one have but to think you only value democracy when the people make the same values choices that you do.

davad70

on Dec 01, 2005

You're mistaken. That was Rombios, not me.

bakerstreet

on Dec 01, 2005

...and when someone opposed him, you offered to back up the assertion. Safe bet, though, say little, account for little. *gives davad some syrup for his waffle*

If in fact you weren't interested in backing his point, and just wanted to differ with Doc, I'd suggest being more clear in the future. When peabrains come in and start saying "F*ck soldiers, they're murderers" and such, you might want to be speficic as to what parts of their ethos you are offering credence to.

ShadowWar

on Dec 01, 2005

Well evidently Para and I feel alike:

"Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter. You will meet them doing various things with resolve, but their interest rarely holds because after the other thing ordinary life is as flat as the taste of wine when the taste buds have been burned off your tongue."

The comment about F&^K the troops, well thats what this comment is about. You have no idea about what you are talking about. I know those that know me know I almost never resort to this but ... go F&*K yourself.

davad70

on Dec 01, 2005

When peabrains come in and start saying "F*ck soldiers, they're murderers" and such, you might want to be speficic as to what parts of their ethos you are offering credence to.

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.

That's what my post was, I was very specific. I would explain myself more thoroughly, but you're a smart guy who just happened to be mistaken is this particular case. Therefore, I won't get shitty and be a smartass with you as you have done to me. Thanks for the syrup though.

bakerstreet

on Dec 01, 2005

mmm, well if you thought the conversation was really about 'jeans' and not the values judgement of pre/post war Iraq, I guess that makes sense. I don't think rombios is all that concerned with Iraqi fashion, though I suppose I could have misunderstood the entire conversation...

kingbee

on Dec 01, 2005

I suppose I could have misunderstood the entire conversation...

the difference between saddam's secular baathist dictatorship and a conservative islamic theocratic patriarchal dictatorship--like the taliban's afghanistan--is one makes women suffer even more than the other.

kingbee

on Dec 01, 2005

. 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.

remind me not to piss you off.

ParaTed2k

on Dec 01, 2005

Giving our troops the respect they deserve is giving them the support they need to complete the job we sent them there to do.

Whether it's our best wishes, prayers, care packages, moral support, letters, or even encouragement in blog articles only a few of them will read, in whatever way (small or great) we can, we need to support them all we can.

bakerstreet

on Dec 01, 2005

As with discussions of American politics, people tend to confuse a democratic system where people decide what their government will be, and "islamic theocratic patriarchal dictatorship" where they don't. I would have SWORN I saw women voting in the last Iraqi election.

No one has yet answered whether this heinous anti-jeans policy is governmental, constitutional, or what. I have a feeling people are just more able to express their RELIGIOUS PERSONA now, which, granted, to some in all parts of the world is a threat.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!