Operation E-book Drop: For the Troops

[CallOfCth'reader]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It doesn't really say much for the "right of free speech" in your country if someone cannot express an unpopular opinion without being physically assaulted as a consequence, does it? It's unpopular opinions that people need to know that they can express without the risk of assault, prosecution, or other consequences. Popular opinions don't need protection.

If what you say is actually true, then I'd be deeply concerned about what rights a person actually has to free speech in your country.

Excellent post.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by alecE

1. I am deeply opposed to the UK government's military involvements in Afghanistan and Iraq;
2. It does not follow though that I should denigrate the military personnel who are serving in those theatres.
3. The proper target for my criticism is the UK government, not individuals who run the risk of being maimed or killed.
4. Like it or not, armed forces are necessary. Sometimes politicians will mis-direct them. Criticise the government, support the military and work to bring them home, alive.

"...For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Chuck him out, the brute!'
But it's 'Saviour of 'is country' when the guns begin to shoot..."
- Rudyard Kipling, 'Tommy'

I agree broadly - but I think we should also acknowledge that sometimes some of our troops have done, and still do, despicable things. Their victims also deserve recognition; and I shall be thinking of them as well as the service personnel at 11:00 this morning (it's Remembrance Day in the UK).

[bjrnfrdnnd]

Actually, it remains unclear whether you support or reject the operation ebook-drop; having a strong opinion can go both ways

[bjrnfrdnnd]

I am sorry, that was in reply to Donnageddon

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It doesn't really say much for the "right of free speech" in your country if someone cannot express an unpopular opinion without being physically assaulted as a consequence, does it? It's unpopular opinions that people need to know that they can express without the risk of assault, prosecution, or other consequences. Popular opinions don't need protection.

If what you say is actually true, then I'd be deeply concerned about what rights a person actually has to free speech in your country.

No. "Free Speech" refers to what the government can and cannot do, not to individuals. Just because we have a right does not mean that the government has to protect us from our own stupidity in exercising that right.

I have the right to own a firearm. Should the gov't be responsible for making sure I don't shoot myself in the foot?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

No. "Free Speech" refers to what the government can and cannot do, not to individuals. Just because we have a right does not mean that the government has to protect us from our own stupidity in exercising that right.

I was not referring to the first amendment of the US Constitution, Nate; I am of course well aware of the fact that this relates only to what the government is permitted to do. I was referring to the general state of free speech in society - that apparently someone in the USA can be beaten up in public for expressing an unpopular opinion, and that people would seemingly find this amusing. I find that disturbing. Surely someone is entitled to express the view that soldiers are wrong to serve in Iraq without running the risk of physical violence by doing so? It may not be a popular viewpoint, but someone is entitled to hold, and to state, that view if that is their belief, are they not?

[mazzeltjes]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It doesn't really say much for the "right of free speech" in your country if someone cannot express an unpopular opinion without being physically assaulted as a consequence, does it? It's unpopular opinions that people need to know that they can express without the risk of assault, prosecution, or other consequences. Popular opinions don't need protection.

If what you say is actually true, then I'd be deeply concerned about what rights a person actually has to free speech in your country.

I fully agree on that.

The USA is 22nd in the Free Press Index List:
http://www.rsf.org/East-Asia-and-Mid...ave,11710.html


Maybe the people who criticize the U.S.A. should be careful what they say in this forum. You might never get into the Land of the Free if the N.S.A. has it's way.

[bjrnfrdnnd]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

The "exact circumstances" don't mean a rats ass. It doesn't matter if he didn't want to go. It doesn't matter if he had tried to leave the service.

He swore allegiance to this country, and he betrayed his fellow servicement yelling "Allah Akhbar" before doing so.

No amount of whitewashing, cowardly political correctness by anyone, or excuses from his family will ever erase his disgrace.

Ever.

As always, everything depends on your motivation. If you are interested in categories like grace and disgrace, your opinion might be backed up by a large number of people. If you are, however, interested in categories like causal chains, why did this happen, how did it happen, how will we be able to stop such a thing from happening, what should be changed in order to stop such things.... Well, in that case, it _does_ matter why he wanted to go. It _does_ matter why the army wouldn't let him go. It _does_ matter what the regulations are.
In my opinion, that guy went crazy due to his disagreeing with the army's actions. The army might be to blame because it didn't have the necessary control mechanisms in order to find out that the psychological stability of this guy was insufficient in order to keep the individual in the ranks of the army. It might also turn out, that this happened rather quickly and with little
possibilities to have been anticipated. In that case, one might have to just say "these things happen". I hope, however, that some kind of lesson kan be learnt from what happened. That either psychological inspection of the soldiers is intensified, or that the army allows more individuals to leave its ranks, something that might reduce the probability of this thing to happen again. I am quite sure that saying "That guy was an asshole" doesn't help to reduce the probability of this kind of thing happening again.

The army simply has opposing interests. It cannot let go people just because they don't want to continue fighting - the probability that there are no soldiers willing to go into the next conflict is too high. On the other hand, the army only wants people that are motivated to do what the army orders.
So, the army must look for a compromise between letting people go in order to remain a motivated entity, and keeping them because they need the manpower.

The army has an interested in critical soldiers - soldiers who do not agree with every action the army does, but who do agree that the army serves a greater good. Without these critical individuals, a body like the army necessarily runs the risk to become too radical and self-content, and in consequence will do things that are not morally defensible anymore - or even outright crimes of war.

In the same line of reasoning, the country as a whole has an interest in critical citizens - citizens that do not support everything the army does, that do not support everything that the government does. That is called democracy and the freedom of speech. It is a necessary corrective in order to not end up in attack wars and dictatorship.

[bjrnfrdnnd]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

just to clear things up...

I'm a vet... my Dad was a very successful attorney at the time of my enlistment, no cash flow problems, and I had several scholarship offers.

my estranged spousal unit is a vet, his folks are still doing quite well even in these depressed financial times. he also had numerous college oppourtuniteis

(in fact we met in college after our initial enlistments were up)

my niece is a soldier. her mother is a very successful real estate agent and her father owns his own industrial cran business. she left college to join the army after 9/11.

my brother in law is a naval aviator, obviously went to college. his father retired from one of the top athletic equipment supply companies in the world. Executive V.P.

my son in law is a submariner. lefft college to join the Navy post 9/11.

my son was a SEAL. he never wanted to be anything but a SEAL or a RANGER. his father could endow a few scholarship programs

Not sure why you cite me prior to this post. Is ist because you belong to a well-off family, and still members of the family join the army? No need to convince me that many people join the army _not_ because of economic pressure, but because they _do_ see the greater good the army serves. That was actually my point: I hope that _most_ people follow this reasoning. I got the impression you somehow wanted to morally excuse people who join the army for economic reasons, as if they should be excempted from their duty to justify the things they are doing on a moral basis. I disagreed with that reasoning.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by bjrnfrdnnd

That is an interesting thought. I suppose this is an argument that explains why so many people of lower economic power join the army; in my opinion, it cannot be a moral argument at all. If implicitely states that these persons, by joining the army, hope to better their economic situation at the expense of possible innocent victims (collateral damage). I sincerely hope that most people joining the army, aside from economic motivations, do also think that the army they join is serving a greater good; and if they find that it is not doing so, they should leave the army in spite of the economic consequences. Therefore, I do think that soldiers are responsible for the wars they are leading, and should always be able to defend any given war on a moral basis.

Originally Posted by bjrnfrdnnd

Not sure why you cite me prior to this post. Is ist because you belong to a well-off family, and still members of the family join the army? No need to convince me that many people join the army _not_ because of economic pressure, but because they _do_ see the greater good the army serves. That was actually my point: I hope that _most_ people follow this reasoning. I got the impression you somehow wanted to morally excuse people who join the army for economic reasons, as if they should be excempted from their duty to justify the things they are doing on a moral basis. I disagreed with that reasoning.

you were exploring the thought that military enlistment was heavily weighted by economic need. I was pointing out that indeed it is not. and it was not me that "wanted to morally excuse people wjp join the army for economic reasons"

[bjrnfrdnnd]

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.

kindlekitten,
You are right. I just wanted to say that it was actually Patricia, not you, with above post that did do the implicit "excempting the poor from their duty to morally justify their actions" - post

So we do agree that any soldier is responsible for what he/she does, and economic pressure does not take away that duty.

You were faster than me

Concerning my post, I did not say that I believed that economic pressure is the main reason for joining the army.
As I don't have any figures concerning the economic backgrounds of people joining the army, I am unable to state whether the poor are overrepresented in the army or not. Consequently, I was just pointing out that I hope that, even if military enlistment was heavily weighted by economic need, the predominant motivation for joining the army would still be the desire to join a body that serves the greater good.

[bjrnfrdnnd]

@kindlekitten
Therefore I was confused why you cited me. I think, it is Patricia's aformenentioned post post you have replied to.

[kindlekitten]

the economic background is truly across the board. some of the soldiers I respected the most were the ones that had chosen to pull themselves out of the hell of the ghettos without any very good future prospects and chose to excel by using the military as their springboard

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by bjrnfrdnnd

@kindlekitten
Therefore I was confused why you cited me. I think, it is Patricia's aformenentioned post post you have replied to.

I was simply pulling out your one statement regarding the possibilities of enlistment motivations. I didn't want that to become a misinterpreted trend of enlistments

[gollu]

Guys, I don't know how many of you have been involved in military action so I'll try to give my 5 cents.
When you are out there somewhere, away from the places you've grown at, surrounded by bombs exploding, tanks firing, seeing your best friends peeing in their pants or have them as a warm corpse at the end of the day - it ain't the best of feelings.
Joseph Heller's got is right - all you think is "Why the bastards are trying to kill me"
So, recieving a gift, be it an e-book, a pocket knife or a cake is something that brings you back to humanity. I am sure those American soldiers there are well paid - it's just the act of giving as I am sure most of them feel giving to you.

As about Mr luqmaninbmore, you are most welcome to open a gift program for Taliban "soldiers" and Iraqi "militia kamikaze squad". Maybe even try and do something more than preach on forums about the big nasty imperialism against the poor peace loving people. I am sure they are looking for recruits.