Father's Day and opinions on sacrificed sons

[silveradept]

Happy Father's Day, to those that qualify. Hopefully, your children love you still.

This week, annaonthemoon comes to visit again, in preparations for her cross-state move next month. Hopefully, she'll get everything squared away with housing and jobs so that she can dive right in when she arrives. We hope she likes it here well enough to stay, even after we remove our charming presence from this town when we graduate next year and go seek our fortunes elsewhere.

I note that my spam, when it comes to dating, used to read "Christian Singles". Apparently, that's either passe or the spammers have figured out that that doesn't interest me. What they've replaced it with, however, is "Meet black singles". Either they think that I am racially black or extraordinarily interested in them. I wonder where this will go next. (For the record, to me, attractive people are attractive people, regardless of their race. I have no particular fetish for one over another that I am aware of.)

A pair of related materials, from Republicans for Satan: Americans want an end to Iraq war, Senate disagrees, and Fuck the Troops. The first is taking the idea of low approval ratings and pairing it with what it calls "feel-good politics" from the Senate, which passed a resolution to see things through to the bitter end, thinking that America Must Prevail. (Eventually.) It's another round of If You're Not With Us, You're With the Terrorists, and may quite rightly be a smokescreen to hide not dealing with actual security issues as well as domestic policies that a significant amount of Americans feel are important, moreso than a quagmire in a foreign country that shows no signs of finishing anytime soon. (Although, that may be a knock on the public's attention span, that they're getting restless. Still, they were sold a quick conflict, being welcomed as liberators, a quick reconstruction and installation of government, and democracy in the Middle East, huzzah! They got none of that, so I suppose the fact that they're only antsy may be a knock on their apathy, instead.) Remarks made about people being safer here because of the soldiers there neglect the crime rate that happens here domestically, and also doesn't do squat about another potential McVeigh or someone else who decides to take up the mantle of striking at the government by killing its innocents.

The author strikes at all politicians, regardless of their political affiliation, as having started the conflict that nobody wants. A rather pointed demarcation is leveled, stating that those who support the war should stand by and assist those who fight it, while those who do not should be under no obligation to provide any aid or support, moral or otherwise, to the people fighting, or the politicians who insist that the fighting continue.

This leads into the second article, Fuck The Troops, which was apparently posted and then deleted from its original source. The article addresses a quandary (perhaps even a paradox) about the War - namely the position of being against the war, but still "supporting the troops" that are there. Perhaps this position arises out of a sympathy for the necessity of following orders to go to Iraq, but believing that the soldiers who are there don't want to be there and are against the war itself. Perhaps in a roundabout way, by being against the callousness of how their lives and funding is being handled, and so against the war because of the need for self-preservation. The article suggests that there is no such position among those who fight using the weapons of war. Soldiers have thinly-veiled self-interest at heart, according to the article, and are drawn from the very dregs of the American populace. Persons too stupid to make something of themselves at university, college, or a trade and who have to find some way of funding their lives and moving up from their socioeconomic state. Persons so far down that they believe the propaganda about being "An Army of One" in an organization designed to strip someone of their identity. Persons who, without the assistance of the brainpower of others that created the mechanized force that powers our army, would be utterly useless in any combat for anything other than the simplest of tasks. (I may be exaggerating the author's intent, but I find this a fair extrapolation. You're welcome to tell me if I'm reading too far in, or that I'm not getting it.) The final remark is that soldiers don't hold the principles of things like freedom and democracy at heart, but merely use them to clothe their own selfish goals for advancement, and playing the odds that they'll manage to collect on the things that the military promised them, rather than coming home in a body bag. At least 2500 of those soldiers have lost that gamble. There's likely to be a lot more before all is said and done.

Perhaps oddly, and much to the chagrin of the hawks, I think that his position is reasonable. There's no sin nor crime in being ashamed of the armed forces, the work they do, and the machinations of those who direct them. (Despite what some think.) There's also no real dishonour in refusing to participate in such a system, whether it recruits by volunteer, by law, or by force. His statement about the intelligence and desperation of the soliders, I have no clue about, but I know that there is an enticement to consider the military as a funding source for an otherwise unavailable university degree, and with stories circulating (true or not) of the military offering shinies to young men to get them to enlist, perhaps they are pandering to the lowest common denominator, playing up beliefs that they don't hold, and appealing to self-interest and greed. A hypocrisy of that sort is shameful, if it is true.

I don't know. I realize this is one of the ways that representative government can go horribly awry or do significant good by ignoring the will of the people and the poll ratings. Personally, I thought the idea of going into Iraq was misguided from the beginning, and so the idea of leaving before there is more needless bloodshed appeals. History, I suppose, will vindicate the correct decision, whatever it may be. If things do pull through to the end and work out, then it will be up to the future to decide whether it was worth the cost. I don't think it will be, but that's my limited and temporally-bound perspective.

Comments

[annaonthemoon.livejournal.com]

Well, I'll miss you after you're gone, but that doesn't mean I won't stay around. Unless Will decides to stalk you, and then I'll have no choice but to move with him.

Also, next for your inbox: "Single Tubgirls".

I need to be silly rightnow, so i'm not tackling the rest of your post yet.

[greyweirdo.livejournal.com]

I read most the "Fuck the troops" thing and I don't think you're over exagerating the ideas that writter expressed. I find that additude tends to play right into the "You hate our troops and freedom" BS that the war mongers (all 37 of them left) want to portray the anti-war movement as.

I know a large part of the "Support the Troops but Fuck Bush" thing is that it's a pre-emptive strike againts the views in that article. The conservitives in the 60s and 70s made up lots of stories about hippies attacking the soliders when they got home (mostly made up BTW) and made a big thing about claiming anyone who was against the war was an elitiest, and would mindlessly blame the poor little soldier who just did what they were told. It was just another way to tar the anti-war movement with the looney brush.

I think there are a lot of kids who join up for a great many reasons. I think that saying all troops must be either dumb or desperate shows off a particular elitism from the writer that makes me uncomfortable as well.

[silveradept]

There has to be a ceratin level of intelligence in the troops, or else the complex machinery that they wield would not dance at their command, and would be useless and expensive to replace every time a tank got sand in the gears. But yeah, saying that the troops are composed of only the dumb and desperate makes a generalization I don't like.

I think the desperation is the military itself, as it sees recruitment levels fall away - people realize that signing up is likely to mean a trip to Iraq, where there's a good chance of getting offed. Most people need a pretty big payout at the end to play Russian Roulette.

[greyweirdo.livejournal.com]

I also feel annoyed at the author because they make it seem like doing something out of self interest is somehow inhuman or wrong headed. I mean everything we do is out of self interest eventually.

[silveradept]

Eventually, yeah. I think it might have been worded better to say "While spouting things like 'freedom' and 'democracy', the politicians/soliders are really acting for the interests of killing, destroying, and giving over no-bid contracts to their friends in corporations. This kind of hypocrisy is bad."

[starkruzr.livejournal.com]

Hm. Does the fact that I hardly ever find black women attractive make me racist?

I think a lot of it is the "typical urban black woman" attitude and manner of speech, which tends to be an enormous turnoff for me, but also I seem to be generally turned off by a large subset of black female facial features.

I wonder what that says...

[shenalia.livejournal.com]

It's a shame when people like the writer of the "Fuck the Troops" article make assumptions about the people on the bottom rungs of an organization based on their perceptions of the type of work that organization does.

Yes, he does have a point, and even though I disagree with him, I accept it: one does not have to support the troops. It's not some mandatory thing. However, the various reasons he lists for not doing so - calling in the obvious corruption of the military, the lack of intelligence any person who joins the military must have to have been conned into doing so - are complete bullshit, based on his perception that military organizations are inherently corrupt and evil due to the fact that they deal in the business of causing death - for whatever reasons that may be.

That individuality, the "Army of One"? It's there, but it's not really obvious. His perception that it's not there is based on public perception of the military that is still, to this day, based on the armed forces of the first half of the twentieth century - back before it was a volunteer force. The Air Force, which I can speak of more potently seeing as I am a member of such, allows for an even higher degree of maintained individuality - and, in fact, strengthens itself by allowing its people to use that to better the force, instead of sacrificing the individual successes and strengths a person may bring to the forefront for a greater degree of control over those people. You don't have to force things (as much, at the very least) into someone who wants to be there. It's insulting.

Yes, there are bad people in each of the armed forces; there's bad people in every organization. However, you can't have people assuming that there will never be any (as those people who are suddenly shocked when one soldier goes over the line of morality in a combat situation where some people often can't tell the enemies from the innocents), nor can you have people like this assuming that they will all be bad, simply by attaching a stigma and a perception to them.

Grah.

[jokermage.livejournal.com]

Yes, he does have a point, and even though I disagree with him, I accept it: one does not have to support the troops. It's not some mandatory thing. However, the various reasons he lists for not doing so - calling in the obvious corruption of the military, the lack of intelligence any person who joins the military must have to have been conned into doing so - are complete bullshit, based on his perception that military organizations are inherently corrupt and evil due to the fact that they deal in the business of causing death - for whatever reasons that may be.

Motion seconded.

My basic view is that the war in Iraq was very stupid. The rationale for it was stupid and the implementation was also stupid. The aftermath has been one hamfisted blunder after another. The positive items seem to mostly stem from the government's ability to throw a bunch of borrowed dollars at the problem.

The reality, however, is that our military is fighting Iraq. Pulling out too soon could be just as bad as staying too long. We need to pull out as soon as it is feasible, otherwise we will have larger problems to deal with.

[silveradept]

That you don't find them attractive. No more, no less. Although there are probably some people who would launch into a tirade about your racist behavior and intent to keep black women down because you don't find them attractive. These may be the same kind of people, though, who if you respond with "Fine." to the question "how are you doing?" will spin out a rant about how your complacency prevents the true socialist government from coming to power and making your life completely for the better.

I wouldn't worry too much about it.

[starkruzr.livejournal.com]

I've heard arguments that it makes me racist in the strictest definition of the term: simply discriminating (in any way, about anything) on the basis of race.

I suppose a case could be made in the other direction that just because those traits happen to be found in black women doesn't mean that I don't like them BECAUSE they are typically black.

[shenalia.livejournal.com]

Amen on the "feasible" comment. We're almost there, actually, but the whole political fluff going on about "staying the course" or "pulling out" is BS.

[silveradept]

In honest curiosity, and because I haven't heard politician one talking about it, what would "feasible" be?

[shenalia.livejournal.com]

Talking from an operational military standpoint, "feasible" would be when the Iraqi army itself is able to handle the insurgency itself. At that point, a staged pull-out would be feasible; once they're able to take the brunt of the work, we can pull out one group at a time, and if after we pull out one or two groups it gets worse again, we can adjust to those changes. People not in the operational theatre setting arbitrary dates for pulling groups back simply for the purpose of setting those dates and feeling good about it doesn't get us anywhere.

You don't hear politicians talking about it because it's not in their interests. They either want to set a date so they can hold it against their political rivals when that date comes and the pull-out doesn't happen... or they don't want to talk about it at all, because going into details about what things they'd be looking for in "pulling out" would start their opponents into a frenzy of looking for the slightest of instances of that occuring, then calling those people out on it.

[silveradept]

In this case, then, it's a matter really best left to the military to figure out when to remove the troops, and the rest of us just really have to suffer through the incessant babble of the politicians squabbling and trying to get some sort of leverage over each other.

But at least the idea of what feasiblie is works.

[annaonthemoon.livejournal.com]

The question is, would you be attracted to a paler skin toned woman if she had the same characteristics of a stereotypical black woman? No, you probly wouldn't be. Therefor, I don't think you're being racist, so much as exercising your right to make your own choices.

My Uncle, on the other hand, is racist, because the same actions can be done by a white person and it's all fine and dandy, but if a black person does...oh my, there's hell to pay.

[annaonthemoon.livejournal.com]

why do military terms always make me think of sex?

[shenalia.livejournal.com]

Thanks.

[shenalia.livejournal.com]

Actually, those aren't necessarily military terms, but I know what you mean... =P

[silveradept]

Forgive me for asking the stupid question, but is that "Thanks" as in "Thank you for respecting my opinion, I appeciate it" or "Thanks" as in "I feel that you have just insulted me and am not happy."? I can't tell in the text, and I really don't want to take the wrong idea.

[shenalia.livejournal.com]

"In this case, then, it's a matter really best left to the military to figure out when to remove the troops, and the rest of us just really have to suffer through the incessant babble of the politicians squabbling and trying to get some sort of leverage over each other.

But at least the idea of what feasiblie is works."

I felt this was in relative agreement with the point I made; I was thanking you for respecting my opinion, especially with the "incessant babble" part. =D

[silveradept]

Ah, okay. Good to know.