Mothering Forum banner

1 - 20 of 46 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
471 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This has come up on numerous threads, and I would really like to see an answer. I was just told on another thread that we should support U.S. troops because they are fighting for my rights to use the internet among other things. Can you please explain to me PRECISELY how the U.S. military is fighting for our/my freedom and rights???? I hear this a lot, but for the life of me, can't follow the argument. Could you elucidate, please??? For example, I can understand that the soldiers who liberated Normandy on D-Day were fighting for the freedom of the French (our other government interests aside, for now). But, what does the current war/u.s. military have to do with my freedom/rights????
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,496 Posts
Wow Raven--five hours and NO ANSWERS?? I think we may have stumped them. Probably searching the Fox archives and GOP talking points for a response.<br><br><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/sulkoff.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="tiptoe"> on out of here
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
19,789 Posts
I don't know, but I know I almost :puke when my BIL talked about how he is happy he is in the military because he doesn't want his son being bombed while in school--- like that's a *real* concern (btw, his son is 2 and lives in Oregon)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,606 Posts
You don't really want to know our opinions you just want to <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/hammer.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="hammer"><img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/fencing.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="fencing">:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
471 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Yeah, really, I thought someone might be able to talk me through this. I hear this vague argument all the time: We need to support "our" troops because they are fighting for "us" and our "freedom." Sounds similar to the Bushism: (paraphrased) "The Arab world hates us because they hate freedom." Reminds me of a conversation I had recently with some ******* aquaintances. I mentioned how when my Brazilian au pair left, she took six hand-held can openers with her for family members, because they couldn't buy these in Brazil. Anyway, the ******** exclaimed, "Yeah, we have everything here in the U.S. That's why all those people hate us." So, of course, I realize that this is the level of political discourse most Americans are engaged in. My ******* friend simply sputtered and blushed when asked to clarify and support his opinion. But, I was hoping that some articulate conservative would be able to shed some llight on how our troops represent me, and fight for my freedom. Otherwise, just tell 'em to come home, my freedom is doing ok. My freedom really doesn't need to have any more billions spent to protect it. I certainly don't want to see anyone else killed to protect my freedom and right to have can openers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,150 Posts
Ok, I'll give you a bite, vicariously...of course.<br><br>
My best friend supports the war and the soldiers, for "her freedom" in the USA. She is a flag wavin, bush supportin, member of the NRA, etc...<br><br>
I asked her why?<br><br>
This is what she said;<br><br>
{"Those people" were harboring and laundering the money used for 9-11.<br><br>
Liberals are ready to support the war when it came down to 9-11 but now that it is taking a while, the Liberals want to stop the war.<br><br>
She must support her president blindly.<br><br>
She has to support the soldiers because the Liberals in congress are not giving our soldiers enough equipment and money. They refuse to pass any war supporting measures.<br><br>
What the bush administrations says is true, the Iraqi people are a great threat.<br><br>
We are doing a service for the Iraqi people by liberating them from evil and giving them a place to live in freedom.}<br><br>
She is a college educated, white american woman that lives in the South. She is, what I would say, is the crux of Bush's following. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/disappointed.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="disappointed"><br><br>
We don't really talk politics, and I often just change the topic when it comes to war/bush/nra. She is a great person, but man....how does she come up with this crap?<br><br>
So, there is one look at how people see it. I personally think she is grossly uneducated in politics and force fed channel 6 mentality of the news. Ahhh, glad we have so much other stuff in common because we would <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/argue.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="argue">:nonstop if we didn't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,966 Posts
"But, I was hoping that some articulate conservative would be able to shed some llight on how our troops represent me, and fight for my freedom."<br><br>
Great question and asked honestly, in my opinion...<br>
Joyce in the mts.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,425 Posts
I,too have these questions and would love to read intelligent answers.<br><br>
With the 60th anniversary of D Day and much talk of 'heroes who kept us free' and 'we'd be living under Hitler if it weren't for the Americans/French/etc', I'd like to give honor where it's due today.<br><br>
If the military truly is protecting my MDC time (among other freedoms), best I know it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,035 Posts
Well, I think the argument is that domestic security/safety is a prerequisite for the democratic freedoms we enjoy. And those serving in the military are part of the domestic security forces. By doing the government's will (even if they don't agree with it), they are protecting the US from the unrest (like terrorist bombings) that would foment fascist-leaning government, martial law, and the elimination of said democratic freedoms.<br><br>
But I could be wrong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,997 Posts
Thank you Raven!! I wanted to ask too, but hadn't gotten around to posting yet.<br><br>
Chicago... I still don't understand how people make the connection between attacking Iraq and securing our domestic freedom/security...If I'm correct, Russia and China (and maybe Canada and Mexico, but come on) are the only countries that have the capability to send a missile from their soil to ours. If that's the case, wouldn't it make more sense to be at home watching our borders, then overseas attacking other countries......? The only way Saddam was going to bomb us is if he carried the bomb over here in a suitcase, or shipping container, or FedEx package, etc.<br><br>
I don't understand how the war in Iraq can be seam as anything but an unfortunate waste of American life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
271 Posts
Though I am not an "eloquent conservative", and I am definately not "pro-war", I'll bite, because I AM pro-military members. I have to be...otherwise, my active duty dh would be a tad upset with me.<br><br>
In an ideal world, our nation would never be threatened under any circumstance. No nations would be threatened. Everyone would live happily ever after, with no fighting, no wars, no weapons of mass distruction, no nothing.<br>
Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world. Yes, every nation should get rid of their weapons and military and instruments of defense. The issue is who is going to go first? It has been pointed out to me that Panama does not have a military in place. Then again, you can't exactly compare Panama and the US. I wish we could have that peaceful world. I'm not, however, willing to be the first nation to let down its guard.<br>
Please let me first state that I do not believe at all that the Iraqi regime (as it exists now or as it existed a year and a half ago) is a threat to our existance. I am rabidly anti-war on Iraq. I have to be. I am a military spouse. I don't know how any military spouse could be pro-war. Some are, I just don't understand it.<br><br>
Anyway...before I go WAY off topic...<br>
The vast majority of the military members I know did not join the military to go to war. They didn't join to wage war on or with anyone. They joined to protect this nation, uphold it's constitution, and protect its citizens. Period. And they will do whatever it takes to do those things.<br>
They joined the military in the tradition and footsteps of those brave men and women who fought for our nation before them. My dh, for example, joined the military in the footsteps of his father and uncles, all who served this country in WWII, one who died over the Adriatic Sea. My dh joined to continue that tradition of excellence, to carry on the safety and stability of our nation, and to thank those men and women for protecting our people and the people of many other countries facing terrible atrocities.<br>
So yes, those men and women currently serving in the armed forces ARE the ones who will defend (to the death, if needed) your right to do things such as post on MDC (that's a gross understatement, but it's the one being given...) if that defense should become necessary. Should our nation be attacked, those military members are in place to protect you and your family.<br>
I'm not exactly being an eloquent liberal, either, so forgive me here...<br>
Here's what I'm trying to say. You may live your entire life and never require the services of a police officer, fire fighter, or paramedic. It would be a fabulous world if those positions no longer be necessary. However, they are there in case you DO need them. Yes, all of those jobs could be done by the average citizen...Your house catches fire? Well, a bunch of your neighbors could just grab a hose and try to put it out. And they may or may not be effective. However, I know that many (if not most) of us would feel safer if there are people who are trained specifically to put out that house fire, allow as little damage to your home as possible, and save any people trapped inside. I may never need those services, but I'm glad they are available to me if I ever do.<br>
The same could be said about our military (as I see it anyway). Yes, if our nation should ever get attacked, we could all join together and grab the guns off the shelves at Walmart, the knives out of our kitchens, and the slingshots from our attics and fight our attackers. And we may or may not be effective. However, there are hundreds of thousands of men and women specifically trained to defend our nation. We may never need those services, but I am glad they are available if we ever do.<br><br>
I'm sure that doesn't exactly answer your question, as I don't exactly fulfill your requirements for answering your question...I am anti war, liberal, and pro military members. And I'm sure you will find many reasons to flame me...feel free. I tried to answer your questions as honestly as I could.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,205 Posts
thanks for that reply, grnbn76. I'm glad someone's tried to tackle this one, tho it would be nice to get a POV from someone who's actually pro-war.... SQ??? What IS your take on this war these days? You know, I am actually interested to hear your opinion, always have been.... but I do reserve the right to disagree with you if need be <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/smile.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="smile">. That's not fighting, that's a robust discussion!!<br><br>
from what I gather, the main reason why folks say that the military is defending freedom is because they are sworn to uphold the constitution, right? Okay, so how to define 'sworn to uphold'? What is the wording, anyway? Is there some sort of pledge, with specific words?? And is it the same for all branches of the military??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
271 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>aussiemum</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">from what I gather, the main reason why folks say that the military is defending freedom is because they are sworn to uphold the constitution, right? Okay, so how to define 'sworn to uphold'? What is the wording, anyway? Is there some sort of pledge, with specific words?? And is it the same for all branches of the military??</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
Here is the actual oath of enlistment for all serices (except National Guard).<br><br>
I, ____________, solemnly swear (or affirm) that i will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.<br><br>
The last words ("So help me God") are optional, depending on the individual's personal religious preference.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,205 Posts
Thank you grnbn! For doing my homework for me!<br><br>
Okay, now I think we need a legal interpretation here- what exactly is meant by 'support & defend'?<br><br>
ETA: just wanted to say that i think it is a..... challenge..... to swear to defend words on a page, albeit very important words. And I do believe that the reason many folks join the military is because they believe they can do good for their country. (Or they're broke, but that's another thread altogether)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,819 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>aussiemum</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">...Okay, now I think we need a legal interpretation here- what exactly is meant by 'support & defend'?<br><br>
ETA: just wanted to say that i think it is a..... challenge..... to swear to defend words on a page, albeit very important words. And I do believe that the reason many folks join the military is because they believe they can do good for their country. (Or they're broke, but that's another thread altogether)</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
What is to be supported and defended is decided by people outside of the military (the Senate, Congress, etc.) So long as it's "lawful", the military carries out the policy but they don't make it.<br><br>
Articles 90 and 91 of Uniform Code of Military Justice make it a crime, punishable by death, to willfully disobey a lawful command of a superior Commissioned, Noncommissioned or Warrant Officer.<br><br>
Think of it this way...let's say you live in the state of Vermont. The Vermont legislature decides what is illegal, the police are the ones who enforce those decisions. Same with the military. Often times, people seem to think that the military decides its own missions and that is just not the case.<br><br>
People often ask my SO, a U.S. Marine, what he thinks of the war in Iraq. He always tells them the same thing, "It's not my job to decide United States foreign policy, it's my job to enforce those policies." If he thought what he was being asked to do was unlawful, he wouldn't do it. But up until that point, even if he doesn't <i>agree</i> with the policy, it's his job to carry it out.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
19,789 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">But up until that point, even if he doesn't agree with the policy, it's his job to carry it out.</td>
</tr></table></div>
But he doesn't have an opinion on it? As a citizen he *should* IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,819 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>TiredX2</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">But he doesn't have an opinion on it? As a citizen he *should* IMO.</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
As a United States Marine, he does not have a <i>public</i> opinion on it. Not the same as not having an opinion on it. The bottom line is that he must be prepared to carry out <i>any</i> lawful order. That's what he, and I, try to emphasis to people.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,205 Posts
Thanks for that, pugmadmama.
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">Think of it this way...let's say you live in the state of Vermont. The Vermont legislature decides what is illegal, the police are the ones who enforce those decisions. Same with the military. Often times, people seem to think that the military decides its own missions and that is just not the case.</td>
</tr></table></div>
Question for you tho-- where does the Secretary of Defense/Homeland Security/ Secretary of State fit into that decision making process? They are not elected, yet to me it seems like a lot of decisions about this current 'war on terror' are being made by, or at the very least heavily influenced by, unelected politicians. Who also stand to financially gain from the invasion of Iraq, amongst other things (selling military hardware, research, etc.).......<br><br>
I can totally understand the pledge thing. I can understand the requirement to obey orders (not for me, but for the military person!)- I personally think anybody joining up had better understand what's expected of them first, otherwise, to paraphrase a line from a famous Kubrick movie, they may find themselves in a 'world of shit'...... I can think of examples where bringing in the Aus military has been of enormous benefit to the host country (& we were invited). I can think of examples where bringing in the military has not helped hte situation. IMO, the US gov't has put it's military in a very difficult & possibly illegal situation in Iraq-- and they have no choice but to follow orders!!..... & I'm very sorry to say that, pug, as I know from your other posts that your sweetie is heading over soon, if he hasn't already. I hope you don't htink I'm saying HE'S illegal.... you just have to do the best you can with the situation you've got, KWIM?<br><br>
And Tired, in my experience, military people (friends) will tell you their opinion on any given number of things they are required to do. It helps to have a few beers first... <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/smile.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="smile">. It is also somewhat unwise & unkind to pass on any dissenting information you might be told...... just my take on things, as always....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,819 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>aussiemum</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">...Question for you tho-- where does the Secretary of Defense/Homeland Security/ Secretary of State fit into that decision making process? They are not elected, yet to me it seems like a lot of decisions about this current 'war on terror' are being made by, or at the very least heavily influenced by, unelected politicians. Who also stand to financially gain from the invasion of Iraq, amongst other things (selling military hardware, research, etc.)...</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
They are not elected...but they are appointed by a person who is (or, I should say, by a person who is <i>supposed</i> to be elected, the President of the United States...as I'm sure you know, the current U.S. President was installed by the Supreme Court) Their opinions are very powerful but they are not always listened too. It's being said, and I suspect this is true, that our Secretary of State, Colin Powell, was against invading Iraq (he wanted more dipolmatic avenues to be explored first), whereas our Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, was for invading Iraq.<br><br>
I believe that the President should have the right to nominate his/her own cabinet. But, at the same time, the conflicts of interest can be quite disturbing. I'm not sure what the answer is.<br><br><div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>aussiemum</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">... IMO, the US gov't has put it's military in a very difficult & possibly illegal situation in Iraq-- and they have no choice but to follow orders!!..... & I'm very sorry to say that, pug, as I know from your other posts that your sweetie is heading over soon, if he hasn't already. I hope you don't htink I'm saying HE'S illegal.... you just have to do the best you can with the situation you've got, KWIM?...</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
Thank you for your concern about my SO. I appreciate that.<br><br>
If my SO thought his orders were unlawful, he wouldn't follow them. But "unlawful" is a high standard and, although it sounds clear-cut, it often is quite difficult to correctly identify "unlawful" orders. Throw in the fact that U.S. military missions often involve not only the laws of the U.S. but international law as well and it gets even more difficult.<br><br>
Only history will prove if these orders were lawful or not. I hope whatever conclusions are reached, people will remember that most men and women in uniform were sincerely doing what they thought was right.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,205 Posts
Quickly now, (OMG i am going to log off sometime today!!) re: cabinet. Have a little look into the parlimentary system, where all positions like Sec of Defense, Sec. of treasury, etc. have to be filled from members already elected to Parliament. When I first started living under this type of system, I thought it was pretty strange, but some years on I can see the benefits of it. Of course, we get some real losers in some positions occasionally. I guess there's some comfort in knowing that they'll get voted out of office in the next election if they stuff it up too badly. Okay, I'm gone. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/wave.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="wave">
 
1 - 20 of 46 Posts
Top