Operation E-book Drop: For the Troops

[bjrnfrdnnd]

I respect your opinion. Not having lived in either circumstance, I can not speak of my own experience, and must try to argue from what I read and what I hear.

[bjrnfrdnnd]

I never doubted the importance of reading material (and ebooks) for soldiers. I was speaking about the public movement, and them buying books, as in them paying money for the troops, as the symbolically important thing. It is evident that having an ebook and having reading material at your disposition is a substantial advantage, and I hope that every soldier does profit from these advantages. I was just doubting that soldiers have a greater need for this kind of public support than the disadvantaged, because they can buy them theirselves. But that's my personal opinion, I cannot base it on any scientific fact.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

E-books also serve as a needed break from the rigors of their jobs, a form of mental relaxation and recovery. Such mental breaks are necessary to keep soldiers healthy and alert, just as physical breaks are. They serve a useful purpose beyond symbolic support.

Exactly. By sending the Ebooks you are supporting the war effort and helping to be more efficient at doing their duties which include, among other things, killing people. In a country which has never launched an attack against US soil.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

You can't blame the war on the soldiers who are sent by our leaders to fight. If you are against the war, criticize your leaders. The only thing you should be saying to the troops is: Can't wait until you're home!

No, it is the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of people willing to go kill because some guy in a business suit tells them to, selling them a bunch of lines about patriotism and defending "the American [TM] way of life" that allows these wars to take place. We no longer have a draft. All of the people in the military are volunteers, many of whom signed up after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan started. They chose to go fight a rich man's war. It is the tendency only to blame leaders, over whom we have only marginal control, instead of blaming ourselves that leads to these totally avoidable social catastrophies, whether it be wars, lack of health care, dire poverty, etc.

Luqman

[Patricia]

Most states have a standing army. Individual soldiers do not get to choose which conflicts they wish to participate in.
I personally don't believe that sending comforts to individual soldiers can be equated with supporting any particular war.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by bjrnfrdnnd

I never doubted the importance of reading material (and ebooks) for soldiers. I was speaking about the public movement, and them buying books, as in them paying money for the troops, as the symbolically important thing. It is evident that having an ebook and having reading material at your disposition is a substantial advantage, and I hope that every soldier does profit from these advantages. I was just doubting that soldiers have a greater need for this kind of public support than the disadvantaged, because they can buy them theirselves. But that's my personal opinion, I cannot base it on any scientific fact.

when this conflict started I collected hundreds of tree books from used bookstores and sent them to "any soldier" in country. at my own expense. reading provides a form of relaxation and escape these kids desperately need. if you disagree with it. fine. go find an unemployed person and make them feel good about themselves, just don't diss the troops

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

Exactly. By sending the Ebooks you are supporting the war effort and helping to be more efficient at doing their duties which include, among other things, killing people. In a country which has never launched an attack against US soil.

go crawl back in your hole

[bjrnfrdnnd]

Actually, I didn't diss the troops. I just argued that their might be parts of society that are in stronger need of public support, and in particular public support that involves spending money, than soldiers.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Actually, rcuardo, it is people like luqmaninbmore who prove the point of why we are the best country in the world in which to live.

Regardless or whether one supports the war or not, one should support our troops who are simply obeying the laws of our country. We have a system for political change that works -- slowly but well -- which is much better than the system used in many other countries (the barrell of a gun). I may think Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and George Bush are idiots, but the beauty of our country is that they are free to be idiots, and it is our soldiers who make it possible.

By what measure is this the best country in the world in which to live? Quality of life? Infant Mortality? Life expectancy? Poverty rate? Likelihood of being incarcerated? Gap between the rich and poor? The US trails the developed world in all of these measures.

Why should one be given support simply because one obeys the laws of the country? Should I support the bankers who are responsible for the recent economic meltdown or the people who took out loans recklessly? They were only obeying the laws of the country. Such a response ignores the greater question: not is it legal, but is it right?

FYI, I could be doing this questioning just as easily in India, France, UK, Ireland, Canada, Pakistan (in which the media played a key role in recently bringing down a military dictator who had the support of 'the troops'), or many other countries. The US does not and never has had a monopoly on freedom.

Luqman

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

No, it is the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of people willing to go kill because some guy in a business suit tells them to, selling them a bunch of lines about patriotism and defending "the American [TM] way of life" that allows these wars to take place. We no longer have a draft. All of the people in the military are volunteers, many of whom signed up after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan started. They chose to go fight a rich man's war. It is the tendency only to blame leaders, over whom we have only marginal control, instead of blaming ourselves that leads to these totally avoidable social catastrophies, whether it be wars, lack of health care, dire poverty, etc.

Luqman

yeah, you see it's all about the support you give to the causes you believe in

[Patricia]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

We no longer have a draft. All of the people in the military are volunteers, many of whom signed up after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan started. They chose to go fight a rich man's war. It is the tendency only to blame leaders, over whom we have only marginal control, instead of blaming ourselves that leads to these totally avoidable social catastrophies, whether it be wars, lack of health care, dire poverty, etc.
Luqman

Luqman, there may not be a draft, but there is economic conscription. A lot of young people join the military because there are few job opportunities for them in their local area. And the military provide training too.

I have a German cousin who has recently signed up for 17 years in the German army. She will train as a dentist, and avoid high training fees.

A British relative is considering army enlistment, owing to poor school results. The British army would give him an apprenticeship in a craft.

Neither of my relatives actually want to hurt anyone. If their economic circumstances were different then they would probably make different choices.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by bjrnfrdnnd

Actually, I didn't diss the troops. I just argued that their might be parts of society that are in stronger need of public support, and in particular public support that involves spending money, than soldiers.

here is one of the strongest beliefs in the US Military; "Deeds Not Words". like I said, go support some unemployed person. show how important it is to you.

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

By what measure is this the best country in the world in which to live? Quality of life? Infant Mortality? Life expectancy? Poverty rate? Likelihood of being incarcerated? Gap between the rich and poor? The US trails the developed world in all of these measures.

Why should one be given support simply because one obeys the laws of the country? Should I support the bankers who are responsible for the recent economic meltdown or the people who took out loans recklessly? They were only obeying the laws of the country. Such a response ignores the greater question: not is it legal, but is it right?

FYI, I could be doing this questioning just as easily in India, France, UK, Ireland, Canada, Pakistan (in which the media played a key role in recently bringing down a military dictator who had the support of 'the troops'), or many other countries. The US does not and never has had a monopoly on freedom.

Luqman

then knock yourself out. go forth and rag on someone else

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by Mitchll

"Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

No, we do not. I sleep peacefully in bed because of my faith in God. The line you quote is nothing but a cheap way of papering over the horrors of war, of making yourself feel better about the atrocities that were committed throughout the history of the US: the slaughter of the indigenous population, the enslavement of millions of people of African descent, the conquest of half of Mexico, the usurpation of the remnants of the Spanish empire, and various wars fought to ensure US economic and political hegemony in Asia, Latin America, and elsewhere.

[Patricia]

Ladies and gentlemen,
please remember our posting guidelines:
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/faq...ing_guidelines
(or click on "Guidelines" at the blue bar on the bottom of this page).

We know this is a hot topic and that members hold strong views. But please express them temperately and without personal abuse.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by Patricia

Most states have a standing army. Individual soldiers do not get to choose which conflicts they wish to participate in.
I personally don't believe that sending comforts to individual soldiers can be equated with supporting any particular war.

With respect, most states don't go around invading foreign countries right and left either. When was the last time Ireland or Norway invaded someone? There is a different between sending a care package to someone in some remote outpost in your own country and sending to someone to cheer them up and make the more efficient at occupying another people. They are morally disimilar.

Luqman

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Patricia

Most states have a standing army. Individual soldiers do not get to choose which conflicts they wish to participate in.

No, but they are volunteers. As someone who's been involved in civilian NGO work in a warzone, and have friends out there now doing the same, and given how little support and interest you tend to get, especially when you are not armed yourself...well, Soldiers get paid and can take part in the free market afaik.