Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Sign in to follow this  
TypeO

"For Freedom"

Recommended Posts

Why is my declaration of pride in my country taken as a direct challenge?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that people who don't show an OTT amount of patriotism and pride are labeled as "less American". So when you have people doing that enough, as has happened to Suz before, that is how she might perceive it.

Basically, it would be like saying "Look at me, I'm so proud if you're not proud like me you're not American." Now, I'm not saying you said that. I'm saying that is what has happened here in the past.

Like I said, just out on a limb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lotta political threads here.

Lotta people think our country sucks.

Lotta folks say we have nothing to be proud of.

I'm not one of them.

This guy is a friend of mine, stationed at the base where I work.

He was one of the stars of the '07 US Army Soldier Show, put on each year by actual members of the military.

SPC Phillip Harris wrote and performed this at the end of last year's Soldier Show, and tonight performed it again as an encore at the annual Talent Show.

Y'all believe what you want about how the war is going from the news reports.

I hear it from the people who have had "boots on the ground".

And the vast majority are proud, believe we are doing the right thing, and doing it the right way.

And they know the decisions being made are the right decisions, regardless what the very vocal opposition has to say about it.

So enjoy this piece written and performed by SPC Phillip Harris, combat medic.

And you can feel proud too.

That's one point of view from the-boots-on-the-ground. Here's some others:

http://www.myspace.com/4th25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like I said, just out on a limb.

fair enough.

I just love this guy and his outlook, and wanted to share.

I see my flagulatory masturbationism stance remains intact.

Betta recognize!

:chickeddance:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fair enough.

I just love this guy and his outlook, and wanted to share.

I see my flagulatory masturbationism stance remains intact.

Betta recognize!

:chickeddance:

I'm actually unsure of the legality of masturbating with a flag. Some of our more legal-minded members here should look that up and share with the class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's one point of view from the-boots-on-the-ground. Here's some others:

http://www.myspace.com/4th25

I said vast majority, not ALL.

Of course, your "some others" are trying to sell some records, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm actually unsure of the legality of masturbating with a flag. Some of our more legal-minded members here should look that up and share with the class.

Hey, shit happens when you run out of hankies .That's reason enough to fly the flag in the bathroom. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey, shit happens when you run out of hankies .That's reason enough to fly the flag in the bathroom. :o

I hope you don't use the flag for that! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm actually unsure of the legality of masturbating with a flag. Some of our more legal-minded members here should look that up and share with the class.

Eww no... that would be gross... and unsanitary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you saying women are not fit to serve this country?

If so, lets take title IX and not allow women to vote.

Yes i very aware that some young ladys in the miltary tend to give "it" away like it's hot, but there are some ladys I know personaly would be gald to call my wife who served or are serving in the military.

It's not a question of a woman's ability or thinking skills. I'm saying that most normal thinking people react differently to a woman being torn apart, than a man - although it's horrible for either. And some boys in a foxhole don't need the extra anguish over seeing a wounded woman on the field slowly die in front of them, while some sniper pins them down and picks off the weaker willed ones, one by one. Didn't you people discuss the elevated physciological problems that so many war particants are experiencing, the standard prescription of medications to make them forget what they witness - this is mostly related to the high percentage of woman and children being killed and disfigured as a result of combat within the civilian population area. Adding our own women to this disaster isn't going to comfort anyone - there in combat, or here on their sofa. There's nothing wrong with family intervention, in this case - to strongly let them know how devastating it is to agonize over their well being or hear what happened to them. At least that's what I would do...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Y'all believe what you want about how the war is going from the news reports.

I hear it from the people who have had "boots on the ground".

And the vast majority are proud, believe we are doing the right thing, and doing it the right way.

And they know the decisions being made are the right decisions, regardless what the very vocal opposition has to say about it.

You know, with all due respect to people who serve in armed forces, soldiers aren't really meant to have an opinion on their assignments

It's not for soldiers to tell us or anybody else for that matter whether or not a war or battle is right or wrong, whether decisions being made are right or wrong. Their duty is to follow orders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know, with all due respect to people who serve in armed forces, soldiers aren't really meant to have an opinion on their assignments

Of course they can have "an opinion" on their assignments, where does it say they can't have an opinion?

That doesn't mean they can voice that opinion to their superiors, and doesn't mean that they can gripe about it too much to others either. But of course they are bright enough to know when their blood and guts are being spilled for a good or bad cause.

It's not for soldiers to tell us or anybody else for that matter whether or not a war or battle is right or wrong, whether decisions being made are right or wrong. Their duty is to follow orders

Even if those orders are illegal or immoral? Are you saying that if a soldier is given an order from a superior to execute prisoners or civilians that he has a "duty" to follow those order too?

I don't know where you get your information about how a military works, but once again you are proving that YOUR OPINIONS are completly out of left field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course they can have "an opinion" on their assignments, where does it say they can't have an opinion?

That doesn't mean they can voice that opinion to their superiors, and doesn't mean that they can gripe about it too much to others either. But of course they are bright enough to know when their blood and guts are being spilled for a good or bad cause.

Even if those orders are illegal or immoral? Are you saying that if a soldier is given an order from a superior to execute prisoners or civilians that he has a "duty" to follow those order too?

I don't know where you get your information about how a military works, but once again you are proving that YOUR OPINIONS are completly out of left field.

Wait a minute Del! You know I respect your opinion and your dramatic way of stating always amuses me :) but I am questioning that. I don't know so I'm not disagreeing but I truly thought that ALL soldiers MUST obey commands no matter what they thought about the situation. When response calls for speed there is no time for a soldier to question his 'superiors'...isn't that treason? Not following orders? Please set me straight here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That doesn't mean they can voice that opinion to their superiors, and doesn't mean that they can gripe about it too much to others either. But of course they are bright enough to know when their blood and guts are being spilled for a good or bad cause.

Even if those orders are illegal or immoral? Are you saying that if a soldier is given an order from a superior to execute prisoners or civilians that he has a "duty" to follow those order too?

No, it's not a question of whether they're bright enough to know if it's a bad cause or not, even you should understand Del that what is a 'good' or 'bad' cause is open to interpretation. What you perceive to be a good or bad cause Del, is based on your ideology, and that can either be right or wrong or neither no matter how passionately or how blindly you believe in it. Nothing can be based on the falsehood of 'moral absolutes'.

An army's role is not to provide moral jurisprudence, but to fulfill an ordered operation.

And if there are orders that be judged by others as illegal or immoral, then, to use your own argument against you from the other thread, wouldn't that be a failure of the American Military System that such orders were given in the first place? Or is only the President above reproach, not an Army officer?

At least have the decency to be consistent, Del...

Let's say you're a soldier in an interrogation prison holding suspected terrorists, and your commanding officers want to use some tactics very similar to those used at Abu Ghraib...Now your commanding officers want information, these suspected terrorists could have copius amounts of information that could save many American lives, but you have to get it out of them... So do you say no to your commanding officers because you know some of those tactics are considered by some to be illegal and immoral? Do you possibly endanger the lives of Americans by refusing on moral grounds? Do you endanger the effectiveness of the US Army by refusing to obey a command? How do you decide what is right or wrong anyway? Do you know what the bigger picture is or how your role fits into it as far as military objectives are concerned?

Edited by Gainsbarre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait a minute Del! You know I respect your opinion and your dramatic way of stating always amuses me :) but I am questioning that. I don't know so I'm not disagreeing but I truly thought that ALL soldiers MUST obey commands no matter what they thought about the situation. When response calls for speed there is no time for a soldier to question his 'superiors'...isn't that treason? Not following orders? Please set me straight here!

Actaully it can become a sticky situation; but no, soldiers are not required to follow orders which would obviously be illegal. For example: an order to machine gun a group of villagers in a combat area where there is no obvious sign immenent threat or danger -- that should obviously be an order not to be followed. It can be no defense to say, "I was just following orders" if the order is illegal. There are always rules of engagement and protocols that must be followed. We did not accept the "I was just following orders" defense when we tried war criminals in Nurmberg, and we would not accept that from our soldiers as well.

The problem arises in situations under battle which may not be so easily determined. For example: Lets say a small advance rocon squad of soldiers are doing an operation inside of enemy lines prior to an attack of a main force, and in the process of that action they encounter and engage with enemy forces who end up surrendering to the recon sqaud who are in no way able to take prisoners. Just based on the urgency of their mission and the lack of suffecient men to hold prisoners, it may become necessary to kill those ememy soldiers. Now wait a minute! Wouldn't that be wrong to shoot prisoners you might ask? Well, it would be wrong in another situation. Especially where you had a force large enough and capable of moving those prisoners back behind lines without compromising the mission or the lives of our soldiers. Therefore the legality of many "orders" in war, depends on the circumstances and the options available which might minimize the actual need for extreme force. Any use of extreme force without cause can be questioned by any soldier and needs to be.

Bottom line: In modern warfare there are many more "checks" in place and rules of engagement in which soldiers of all ranks are trained to follow.

No, it's not a question of whether they're bright enough to know if it's a bad cause or not, even you should understand Del that what is a 'good' or 'bad' cause is open to interpretation. What you perceive to be a good or bad cause Del, is based on your ideology, and that can either be right or wrong or neither no matter how passionately or how blindly you believe in it. Nothing can be based on the falsehood of 'moral absolutes'.

An army's role is not to provide moral jurisprudence, but to fulfill an ordered operation.

Yes, but only within the context of the stated misssion and by the rules of engagement already set forth.

At least have the decency to be consistent, Del...

Let's say you're a soldier in an interrogation prison holding suspected terrorists, and your commanding officers want to use some tactics very similar to those used at Abu Ghraib...Now your commanding officers want information, these suspected terrorists could have copius amounts of information that could save many American lives, but you have to get it out of them... So do you say no to your commanding officers because you know some of those tactics are considered by some to be illegal and immoral? Do you possibly endanger the lives of Americans by refusing on moral grounds? Do you endanger the effectiveness of the US Army by refusing to obey a command? How do you decide what is right or wrong anyway? Do you know what the bigger picture is or how your role fits into it as far as military objectives are concerned?

You are basically talking about 'water boarding' to get information. Well first of all that interogation tactic had not specifically been defined as torture as it was being used in Abu Ghraib (basically using water to cause the sensation of drowning without actually doing any real harm to the prisoner). But there has been a debate about that, and since the courts and the military will make a determination about it's use, and the rules for it's use... that would then be a consideration in refusing to follow an order. But what never came into question at Abu Ghraib was the use of any real torture such as beatings... which they could have legally refused. And the same may be true of water boarding now, I'm not sure.

But your suggestion that a soldier can make his decision to not follow an order based on "what some consider to be illegal" is too weak. Soldiers can choose only to not follow orders based on what is clearly illegal or outside of the stated mission and rules of engagement. Only then would the soldier not be in violation of refusing to follow a legal order. The rules on these things are made very clear, even if sometimes the "fog of war" or the heat of battle may tend to blur the distinctions. But those situations are nearly always followed up with through a fair system of military justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I said vast majority, not ALL.

Of course, your "some others" are trying to sell some records, no?

True,but...

They wrote, performed and recorded their first CD "Live from Iraq" in country(that means in Iraq) in a homemade studio between fighting; they have credibility. Just because they are trying to sell their work dosen't mean you can just discount their opinions. I for one support our troops and think their views should be respected (You don't have to agree). I listened to SPC Harris and I was inspired, very cool. But did you listen to Sgt Saunders songs? (Yes I know it's rap, it took me some getting used to!) You should listen up, these guys are fighting for you.

Edited for the usual spelling errors!

It's always easiest to listen to those with whom we agree but we grow and learn the most by considering differing opinions.

Edited by chef free

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actaully it can become a sticky situation; but no, soldiers are not required to follow orders which would obviously be illegal. For example: an order to machine gun a group of villagers in a combat area where there is no obvious sign immenent threat or danger -- that should obviously be an order not to be followed. It can be no defense to say, "I was just following orders" if the order is illegal. There are always rules of engagement and protocols that must be followed. We did not accept the "I was just following orders" defense when we tried war criminals in Nurmberg, and we would not accept that from our soldiers as well.

The problem arises in situations under battle which may not be so easily determined. For example: Lets say a small advance rocon squad of soldiers are doing an operation inside of enemy lines prior to an attack of a main force, and in the process of that action they encounter and engage with enemy forces who end up surrendering to the recon sqaud who are in no way able to take prisoners. Just based on the urgency of their mission and the lack of suffecient men to hold prisoners, it may become necessary to kill those ememy soldiers. Now wait a minute! Wouldn't that be wrong to shoot prisoners you might ask? Well, it would be wrong in another situation. Especially where you had a force large enough and capable of moving those prisoners back behind lines without compromising the mission or the lives of our soldiers. Therefore the legality of many "orders" in war, depends on the circumstances and the options available which might minimize the actual need for extreme force. Any use of extreme force without cause can be questioned by any soldier and needs to be.

Bottom line: In modern warfare there are many more "checks" in place and rules of engagement in which soldiers of all ranks are trained to follow.

Yes, but only within the context of the stated misssion and by the rules of engagement already set forth.

Ahhh, thanks for clearing that up for me Del. You know a lot about this stuff! Are you just well read or were you in the military? Or do you have to kill me if you answer that question? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then the comments weren't directed at you.

I didn't call out anyone specifically.

Other than myself.

Why is my declaration of pride in my country taken as a direct challenge?

Besides, I'm pretty sure flagulatory masturbationism is prolly illegal in at least 29 states or so, as well as Papua, New Guinea.

/just sayin'

:chickeddance:

Illegal?! It's just a flag :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Illegal?! It's just a flag :lol:

I love the new phrase Del coined though - "flagulatory masturbationism", sounds like a philosphy or something.

Q: "What are your beliefs founded on Jimmy??"

A: "Flagulatory masturbationism"

:hysterical:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would I know? It IS the US we're talking about. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

Jimmie,just some thoughts and sorry or going a wee bit off topic,....

It's not a question of a woman's ability or thinking skills. I'm saying that most normal thinking people react differently to a woman being torn apart, than a man - although it's horrible for either. And some boys in a foxhole don't need the extra anguish over seeing a wounded woman on the field slowly die in front of them, while some sniper pins them down and picks off the weaker willed ones, one by one. Didn't you people discuss the elevated physciological problems that so many war particants are experiencing, the standard prescription of medications to make them forget what they witness - this is mostly related to the high percentage of woman and children being killed and disfigured as a result of combat within the civilian population area.

In ancient times some women fought right along side men.Today Israel requires that any abled body person join the military for 2 years,as long as as the physical requirements are met.This sort of gets me with the 'ask,don't tell' policy in the US miltary.You mean to tell me that a gay person can't go out there and kick ass,then take names? :blink: You bet they can and so can women.When I taught street self defense,to women,gay/straight men&women and transexuals,the 'meekest' person in the group 99% of the time became the best fighter, a whirlwind dynamo that would kick your arse 6 ways to Sunday when it called for it. :D

War always leaves a scar,wether your fighting or back home,it leaves a hole.Watch the film: "The Best Years of our Lives." or "All Quiet on the Western Front." or better yet "Johnnie got his Gun'."

Yep,let's bring it back again:I'm proud to be an American,for the warts and all and that we know we are not a nation of angels and saints,never claimed to be.Thanks to my Irish great-grand parents and my Italian/German grand parents for coming over here and making that happen,....

KB(eeesshhh!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi all,

Jimmie,just some thoughts and sorry or going a wee bit off topic,....

In ancient times some women fought right along side men.Today Israel requires that any abled body person join the military for 2 years,as long as as the physical requirements are met.This sort of gets me with the 'ask,don't tell' policy in the US miltary.You mean to tell me that a gay person can't go out there and kick ass,then take names? :blink: You bet they can and so can women.When I taught street self defense,to women,gay/straight men&women and transexuals,the 'meekest' person in the group 99% of the time became the best fighter, a whirlwind dynamo that would kick your arse 6 ways to Sunday when it called for it. :D

War always leaves a scar,wether your fighting or back home,it leaves a hole.Watch the film: "The Best Years of our Lives." or "All Quiet on the Western Front." or better yet "Johnnie got his Gun'."

Yep,let's bring it back again:I'm proud to be an American,for the warts and all and that we know we are not a nation of angels and saints,never claimed to be.Thanks to my Irish great-grand parents and my Italian/German grand parents for coming over here and making that happen,....

KB(eeesshhh!)

KB, great point! People often ask about my name. In the good old days there were warrior queens who actually led the men into battle. Medhb was one of those. The name was given to me by my teacher and though I may be beyond this now I'm still attached to it. The wikipedia article is pretty simplified, it doesn't go into much detail about the warrioress aspect....still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not a question of a woman's ability or thinking skills. I'm saying that most normal thinking people react differently to a woman being torn apart, than a man - although it's horrible for either. And some boys in a foxhole don't need the extra anguish over seeing a wounded woman on the field slowly die in front of them, while some sniper pins them down and picks off the weaker willed ones, one by one. Didn't you people discuss the elevated physciological problems that so many war particants are experiencing, the standard prescription of medications to make them forget what they witness - this is mostly related to the high percentage of woman and children being killed and disfigured as a result of combat within the civilian population area. Adding our own women to this disaster isn't going to comfort anyone - there in combat, or here on their sofa. There's nothing wrong with family intervention, in this case - to strongly let them know how devastating it is to agonize over their well being or hear what happened to them. At least that's what I would do...

Well this is the same policy the marines take. women don't serve on the front line.

nor do the serve on submarines. Most likey this guys daughter sits in south Korea for 11 months out of the year and stock the toliet paper or somthing. But If a women wants to fight, she is more than welcome if she can make the grade.

My good buddys wife is part of a test trial of womens in the marines serving as grunts. I asked him if he was scarred and he in his marine type of humor. "she can out gun this POG on the S.A.W anyday of the week".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...