Comments on: no vietnam syndrome this time

no vietnam syndrome this time

raaka — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:29:46 -0800

I don't think Americans regard this war the same way they did previous wars.

By: papercake

papercake — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:34:16 -0800

I don't think I'm registered for MercuryNews.com.

By: goethean

goethean — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:46:21 -0800

cpunks@cpunks.com/cpunks works... ...but it's not worth it. First-class passengers give up seats for soldiers. Mefi-ite stretches this into a would-be political FPP. Film at 11. Nothing to see here...

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:47:02 -0800

*wanking motion*

By: DenOfSizer

DenOfSizer — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:48:21 -0800

Try: un:frig (or fred@frig.com) p/w:fuckthis the "point" of it: First-class fliers donate seats to U.S. soldiers

By: Ufez Jones

Ufez Jones — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:55:44 -0800

First-class passengers give up seats for soldiers. ...a month ago. This was all over the news after it actually happened. I'm not sure if I'm more disappointed by the lameness of the Mercury News or this post.

By: trharlan

trharlan — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:55:51 -0800

Google offers unrestricted links.

By: skallas

skallas — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:57:47 -0800

Bugmenot plugin for Mozilla and Firefox here.

By: goethean

goethean — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:58:02 -0800

There's nothing wrong with patriotism. However, there's a point at which obsessively flag-waving jingoism becomes a fetish and a substitute for real thought and awareness of the world outside of one's borders. I think that we ran over that point with our red white and blue Hummers a long time ago.

By: jpoulos

jpoulos — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 14:01:34 -0800

Maybe instead of giving them free beer and peanuts and an extra 8 inches of legroom we could, y'know, not send them off to be killed?

By: swell

swell — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 14:08:32 -0800

Of course. Because anybody who is opposed to US foreign policy does so because they hate soldiers.

By: Trik

Trik — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 14:31:30 -0800

I can see all the old hippies being disappointed that civilians aren't spitting on returning troops.

By: plemeljr

plemeljr — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 14:43:00 -0800

There has been no documented proof that Vietnam soldiers were spit on.

By: plemeljr

plemeljr — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 14:47:46 -0800

Just to add, there has been no corroborated proof that Vietnam soldiers were spit on; all of the stories are always, "a friend of a friend was spit on, but I don't know his name." It was a Richard Nixon dirty trick campaign.

By: adampsyche

adampsyche — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 14:48:21 -0800

What j-po said.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 15:07:12 -0800

I can see all the old hippies being disappointed that civilians aren't spitting on returning troops. hey! some of those hippies put thier lives on the line in chicago in 1968 for your freedom, bitch!

By: trbrts

trbrts — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 15:08:47 -0800

It's a nice story. But, I don't think that you can extrapolate it into a corollary about the American public's opinion about the war. That would be like me giving a donut to a homeless person and then saying that everyone in the United States cares about the homeless situation.

By: skallas

skallas — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 15:09:09 -0800

"Vietnam syndrome" was propaganda for the most part. The right did its part is spitting on , yelling, etc at troops who dared question the validity of the vietnam war after coming back. Look what they have to say about Kerry today. Media Myth: Vietnam Vets and Spit.

By: gwint

gwint — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 15:11:02 -0800

The statement "I don't think Americans regard this war the same way they did previous wars." got me wondering about public opinion polls for various wars. This is as far as I got: support for the Vietnam war from 1965-1971. support for current war 1/03-7/04 Executive summary: Highest support for Vietnam War was 66%-- in 1965. Low point was 1971 at 29%. (Poll data ends with '71 although the war ended in '75 or so) Highest support (so far) for current war was 76% at 4/9/03. Lowest point (so far) was 44% at 5/9/04 (Abu Gharib story broke?)

By: mrgrimm

mrgrimm — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 15:18:14 -0800

the "point" of it: First-class fliers donate seats to U.S. soldiers well, no shit. who do you think these soldiers are protecting? you and me? they're protecting US economic dominance in the world, at any cost. damn right those rich folks should give up their first-class seats.

By: kablam

kablam — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 15:20:55 -0800

goethean: I frequently hear sneering at "patriotism", but I'm not entirely sure that most of the sneerers know what "patriotism" really means. Defined, patriotism means a person who strongly supports their country and is prepared to defend it. (Oxford English) Strong support for a country is sometimes called "nationalism", again, often derisively. A patriot therefore cannot be an "internationalist", or a "religionist", or pledge his loyalties to any organization or belief system that challenges the authority of his nation over himself as a person. A Jehovah's Witness cannot be a patriot. A patriot is prepared to defend his country. The two key words being "prepared", that is, not just philosophically defending what your country "represents", but physically as well, to whatever their abilities; and "defend". "Defend" is the more interesting of the two. Defense is what is used to counter attack. "Protection", complementary to "defense", is defending something *before* it is attacked. And here is the great argument of "patriotism." A patriot does not necessarily support protecting his country from attack before it happens, because "protection" is too subjective a term. For some, protection is an outgrowth of paranoia: seeing everyone who is not "us" as "them--the enemy". But a patriot rallies to defend his country after it is attacked. Once a true enemy--an attacker--has acted, then and only then will you see the difference between real patriots and those who are not patriots. And real patriots deserve to inherit their nation, because that is what they love. Someone who can admit to themselves and others that they are not, and never shall be patriotic, look to a possible future, or order, where nations do not exist. But they have no place in the parade celebrating those who defend what is now. So the greatest misunderstanding of patriotism is what it defends: not "ideas", but a nation; not "beliefs", but the people of that nation; and not "rights", such as the right to protest, but responsibilities.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 15:25:55 -0800

Maybe instead of giving them free beer and peanuts and an extra 8 inches of legroom we could, y'know, not send them off to be killed? Agreed, but still no harm in treating them well. The spit myth/hyperbole aside, Vietnam Veterans were treated poorly by both their own government and by citizens who simply wished to forget the war ever happened. Regardless of one's position on the current war, I don't think that there's many people looking for repeat of that. Someone who can admit to themselves and others that they are not, and never shall be patriotic, look to a possible future, or order, where nations do not exist. But they have no place in the parade celebrating those who defend what is now. Not neccessarily. Even someone who detests the concept of nationalism can at least hypotheticall appreciate the sacrifice of laying down one's life for one's fellow man.

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 15:29:06 -0800

I couldn't agree with you more, kablam, excepting that last paragraph or two. I don't understand what a nation is, if not a collection of ideas. If it was a set of people, it would not persist past their lifetimes.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 15:39:29 -0800

By: Satapher

Satapher — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 15:40:53 -0800

the sacrifice of laying down one's life for one's fellow man. whose lives are being saved? whose lives are being destroyed? Any soldier that is given a task by a government is saving lives? by default? 22 million people dead from AIDS btw

By: jonmc

jonmc — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 15:50:57 -0800

Satapher, I may disagree but in the minds of many soldiers they are fighting to protect the world from terrorism. I may disagree and think they being manipulated but I still respect the resolve. Plus any man who has faced combat gets a certain amount of respect from me by default.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 15:57:28 -0800

I don't think Americans regard this war the same way they did previous wars. Or perhaps, more reasonably, they have matured sufficiently to separate a "war" from those forced to fight it?

By: raaka

raaka — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 15:58:17 -0800

"I don't think that you can extrapolate it into a corollary about the American public's opinion about the war." I don't either. I do think that, anecdotally of course, Americans' opinion of soldiers has changed. I would wager this has more to do with 30 years of retrospection than the the current war. It's entirely possible some Vietnam vet somewhere got spit on, but the larger point is that the vets were treated badly on all sides. The politicians who drafted them (or made the mistake of fighting in the first place); the divisive nature of those who dodged the draft or fled and those couldn't afford to do either; a VA that was underfunded, under-staffed and simply not competent enough to deal with all the different problems that the vets had to deal with, notably mental health. In the political arena, there seems to be a race to show how much one cares for and cherishes the troops. Witness Tommy Franks telling a soldier's mother that he loves his son too (can you imagine Patton or LeMay saying that?), or the DNC claiming they know the best use of the military because they make more delibrate decisions, or Bush on the aircraft carrier (trying to make the point he was one of them or something -- I never understood that). I didn't post this to make a political point. I felt it was more interesting in a historical context regarding the shift of public opinion.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 15:59:46 -0800

Plus any man who has faced combat gets a certain amount of respect from me by default. That's just silly. Merely showing up doesn't earn respect, though what one does there can.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 16:04:27 -0800

So the greatest misunderstanding of patriotism is what it defends: not "ideas", but a nation; not "beliefs", but the people of that nation; and not "rights", such as the right to protest, but responsibilities. Blind allegience to a political unit is as immoral as blind allegience to an imagined diety or a dedication to cronyism. One's highest responsibility should always be to truth, decency, and justice, whatever hat they may be wearing.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 16:10:17 -0800

That's just silly. Merely showing up doesn't earn respect, though what one does there can. I don't know about that. Merely "showing up" in what can probably be descibed as one of the most dangerous situations a human can find themselves in does take a certain amount of bravery. Especially considering that many (for reasons both honorable and not) go out of their way to avoid just showing up. It's a situation I've never faced and the idea of facing it, frankly scares the hell out of me, so those who have get my respect, even "enemy" soldiers to a degree.* But I can see your point. Some soldiers have and some continue to behave deplorably in combat. But I will give most veterans the benefit of the doubt, because I realize that I haven't been where they have and that acknowledgement of those circumstances must have some impact on how I judge them or their actions. Certainly we're all still entitled to our opinions but that crucial difference must be acknowledged. *Vietnam Veteran W. D. Ehrhart wrote a book on this very subject, saying that aside from his fellow American Vets, the only people he felt he could truly realte to regarding the war were former VC and NVA. Even though he may have residual anger at some of them for their actions, they had been over the same ground.

By: keswick

keswick — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 16:11:19 -0800

"What do we mean by patriotism in the context of our times? I venture to suggest that what we mean is a sense of national responsibility ... a patriotism which is not short, frenzied outbursts of emotion, but the tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime." -Adlai Stevenson "The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does; the first attitude creates a feeling of responsibility, but the second a feeling of blind arrogance that leads to war." --Sydney J. Harris

By: jonmc

jonmc — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:34:53 -0800

Or as John Greeley puts it: Those who have personally faced the terror of war and survived it carry with them throughout the remainder of their lives a special kind of wisdom, one that others who have never experienced war do not possess. It is a sad, tired understanding of the world and how it works, and how it does not work. It is an understanding of life sighted down the wrong end of a rifle barrel and the sure knowledge of its brevity and frailty.

By: me & my monkey

me & my monkey — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:52:36 -0800

Merely showing up doesn't earn respect, though what one does there can. Maybe it doesn't earn your respect, but it earns mine. "Merely showing up" isn't a trivial thing, when it could cost you your life. My coworker, a Marine reservist in a combat arms unit (LAR), recently returned from his second tour of duty in Iraq, and will probably be sent back again next year. He's seen significant amounts of combat each time. He's not happy about going back, and is not in favor of the war itself or how it's been handled, but he has committed himself to honoring his contract regardless. Frankly, as an ex-Army volunteer, every day I'm thankful I haven't gone through what he has - I'd rather not show up.

By: kablam

kablam — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 18:05:12 -0800

So the greatest misunderstanding of patriotism is what it defends: not "ideas", but a nation; not "beliefs", but the people of that nation; and not "rights", such as the right to protest, but responsibilities. Ideas change, even the Constitution changes. The soldiers of the Confederacy fought, not for the "idea" of slavery, but to defend their homes, and the confederacy of their states as a nation. The Union fought, as Abraham Lincoln said, not for the idea of "freeing the slaves", but to preserve the greater Union as a nation. Both sides were patriotic. Beliefs are even more tenuous. Millions of people have died for beliefs, and yet a patriot does not seek to force his beliefs on others--he fights for his loved ones, for the people of his land, for his comrades in arms. A true believer fights to convert others, more than not because he doubts his true faith. To fight for people is patriotic, to fight for your beliefs shows you value them more than people. And Patriots do not fight for "rights." Rights are the prize that may be won by the patriot, but they are not the end in itself. The fight is to preserve the responsibility to continue to fight for rights. Rights do not exist without responsible defenders of those rights.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 18:43:04 -0800

And Patriots do not fight for "rights." Rights are the prize that may be won by the patriot, but they are not the end in itself. Yes, often soldiers do fight to fend off hostile invaders. Self-defense of one's physical self, home and family is a motive for entering a war. But ultimately that is not what embodies patriotism. Without the rights embodied in the constitution and the ideals behind them, ultimately a country is just a place.

By: mrgrimm

mrgrimm — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 18:43:58 -0800

kablam, i'm trying to follow you, but i'm a little confused. did you just respond to your own previous post? when i think of patriots, i instinctively think of America's battle for independence from England. were they not fighting for "rights" and "ideas?" what i mean is the English weren't attacking the colonists, nor trying to eliminate them. there was no need to defend the colonies from England. they were fighting for the "right" (perhaps not the right word?) of proper representation in their government, no? were those not "patriots?" fwiw, count me in with those who "look to a possible future, or order, where nations do not exist." i've seen enough parades. not my thing.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 18:51:36 -0800

fwiw, count me in with those who "look to a possible future, or order, where nations do not exist." Yes, but that of course begs the question of what we'd have to sacrifice in terms of principles and ideals to get there. I'm honestly not being argumentative, I'm just...well, just saying, as they say.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 19:13:37 -0800

kablam is freakin' me out, 'cause I'm agreeing with him. I think. A patriot fights for the survival of his country: to protect the land and its citizens from attack. The attacking force may be internal -- vis a vis the English, who were implementing taxes and laws unwanted by the citizens. The attacking force may be external -- vis a vis the Canadians, when they burned down the White House. A patriot wouldn't, I think, be over in Iraq attacking citizens and soldiers who have posed no threat to his country.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 19:19:47 -0800

As for the nationless world: hey, it's where we're headed PDQ. There are signs of it already: walled enclaves with private police forces; walled enclaves owned by a corporation for its workers; counties, states, and nations that change their worker/environment safety laws to benefit corporations; governments that imprison people on behalf of corporations. In the future the national borders will be a mere formality, retained for the sake of tradition and deception. The real borders will be determined by the extent of legal influence of a particular corporate presence. The "nation" in which you are in will be the intersection of the corporate agreements and laws that define what you may or may not legally do at that location.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 19:32:05 -0800

fff, I dunno if what you describe is the "nationlessness" people have in mind. I remember when discussing 9/11 via email someone told me that since he lived on the west coast the WTC's destruction might have well have happened in Tokyo for all it affected him. My gut reaction was "But they're fellow Americans!" Basically because I understood that it was their Americanness (at least on some level, and I don't mean in that stupid "they hate our freedoms" way) is what made them a target. In the "good" (for lack of a better word) nationlessness would have induced in me the response of "But they're fellow humans." But then agian the removal of official boundaries has not erased old nationalisms. Look at the former Yugoslavia, Chechnya, Israel & Palestine.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 19:39:38 -0800

jonmc - those cases serve as cover for the new internationalism of monied classes.

By: kablam

kablam — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 19:44:23 -0800

mrgrimm: Before the Constitution, outlining our rights, was the Declaration of Independence: http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/declaration.html which stated that the British nation had failed in its duties to the colonies, as a nation, and so a separation, to create a new nation, was in order. The patriotism of those who fought against England (not all the colonists, I might add), was based in patriotism to the new nation, *not* to the new order that that new nation would eventually enact. You'll also note that most of the grievances listed in the Declaration are against "the people" of the colonies. My second point--the fight of these patriots was not over "beliefs", but to defend people, their loved ones and friends, from oppression and even murder. While mentioning rights, it does not state them as such, that was for later, in the Constitution. And, as my third point stated, the purpose of the Constitution, while enshrining rights, granted, was *not* to limit what government could possibly do, and this is an important point, but to express ALL that the government is permitted to do. People today tend to think of it as the other way around, that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are meant to stop the government from taking away the rights of the states and the people. But that has only been de facto since the New Deal. The original intent was that the federal government was supposed to stay very small, that it was *forbidden* for it to take on responsibilities not expressly permitted in the Constitution. My last argument is that the patriotic people of this country *failed* in their responsibility to defend their responsibilities from an illegally ever-growing federal government. Many, many of their rights became forfeit at that time, and our hold on them since then has become tenuous at best. Rights only exist with responsibilities. So the greatest misunderstanding of patriotism is what it defends: not "ideas", but a nation; not "beliefs", but the people of that nation; and not "rights", such as the right to protest, but responsibilities.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 19:50:13 -0800

jonmc - those cases serve as cover for the new internationalism of monied classes. Perhaps the instigation of the conficts has that as a motivation, trout, but the fact the old regional passions were so easily stirred tells me that nationalism and regional identification is far from dead. Forget countries, here in America we have people who kill eachother for coming from different blocks, never mind countries. You think it's any accident that gangs like the Outlaws refer to themselves as the "Outlaw Nation." An old freind of mine's older brother belong to a Harlem/Bronx gang called the "Zulu Nation." I frankly wonder if that kind of stuff isn't somehow built into the human character, for better or worse.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:16:45 -0800

jonmc - "nationalism and regional identification is far from dead" Oh no, of course. You're absolutely right on that. But, I'm talking about the rise - over several centuries at least (and probably more, but never comparable to the current mass-phenomenon ) - of a new elite global class of hyper-rich who have far more in common with their fellow class members than with their recent class and ethnic origins. And, I would not paint this class in an evil light. Were that things could be so simple.

By: majick

majick — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 20:50:15 -0800

I don't think it's necessarily wise to conflate "patriot" with "soldier." A patriot defends not only the border of his land, but people within it as well as the ideals by which the nation is defined. A soldier -- at least a soldier in the modern, professional armed forces -- is an instrument of policy. Obviously, a part of the job is defense. In a less free state, "patriot" and "jingoist" might be somewhat more equivalent terms than they are in the United States and other democracies. A literalist could characterize a strong supporter of, for example, a malevolent dictatorship of an oppressed people as a patriot, but I'd be inclined to disagree.

By: Satapher

Satapher — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 21:04:08 -0800

respect to jonmc

By: rushmc

rushmc — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 22:26:30 -0800

"Merely showing up" isn't a trivial thing, when it could cost you your life. It is trivial indeed if one is not there by free and considered choice. Many are; others are not. Therefore it is silly to paint them all with the same brush.

By: clavdivs

clavdivs — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 22:30:48 -0800

put the lotion in the fucking basket

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Wed, 28 Jul 2004 23:06:19 -0800

'I-don't-think' Americans regard this war the same way they did previous wars.

By: shoos

shoos — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 00:03:51 -0800

jonmc: the Zulu Nation was not a gang, dude. Try a WAY OF LIFE.

By: DrJohnEvans

DrJohnEvans — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 06:16:10 -0800

For what it's worth, I can't live without the BugMeNot bookmarklet anymore, and that Moz extension looks awesome.

By: keswick

keswick — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 08:20:18 -0800

rushmc: i'm sorry, when did we reinstitute the draft? they're all there by choice. they all deserve respect.

By: kablam

kablam — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 08:31:15 -0800

five fresh fish has a very valid point about patriotism and the Iraq war. A strong argument can be made that Iraq is not a patriotic war. And likewise, majick's comment distinguishing a soldier from a patriot I would also agree with. While a US soldier can be a patriotic fighter, most of the time he isn't. If you were to poll soldiers in Iraq as to their reasons for being there, you would probably only find the least of the patriotic reasons: to defend their comrades in arms. Many might make a linkage to 9-11, but only in a vague, intellectual way, not with the fervor of a patriot say, after the attack on Pearl Harbor. I would expect them to agree that they were *primarily* an "instrument of American foreign policy", with little patriotism attached. Most of their emphasis would be in "restoring" Iraq as a "democratic nation." And yet, if you poll soldiers more directly involved with "the war on terror", who are fighting al-Qaeda fighters on a daily basis, 9-11 would be at the forefront of their feelings, and they probably would directly associate what they are doing with patriotism. al-Qaeda did attack America, and has stated it wants to do so again.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 09:02:44 -0800

they're all there by choice. Clearly, anyone who would say that is not paying attention.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 09:43:51 -0800

kablam, I think you should make every effort to continue to promote and refine your message about patriotism. It is one of the essential messages that the public needs to learn and take to heart if they expect to regain control of their country.

By: keswick

keswick — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 10:14:53 -0800

Clearly, they CHOSE to VOLUNTARILY enlist in military service. No, they didn't chose WHERE to by deployed, but that's never been an option. Otherwise we'd have 99% of our military in Tahiti, instead of Godforsaken-stan. They CHOSE to serve our country, to possibly lay their life on the line. That deserves respect. While the morality of the war in which they are engaged is highly suspect (to say the least), while the actions of those individuals at Abu Gharib are reprehensible, the fact that the average solider deserves respect for his service is not. It's more than what I've done, and I'd wager, more than what you've done.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 11:33:51 -0800

There's voluntary, keswick, and then there's "I don't really see any other way out of this goddamn ghetto" voluntary.

By: keswick

keswick — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 11:49:49 -0800

...you're reaching.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 13:28:37 -0800

They CHOSE to serve our country, to possibly lay their life on the line. That deserves respect. You're still assuming way more than is warranted. Many who joined up will freely admit that these were not their motives.

By: keswick

keswick — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 14:05:46 -0800

So does that make them any less deserving of our respect? "They serve so that we don't have to. They offer to give up their lives so that we can be free. It is, remarkably, their gift to us. And all they ask for in return is that we never send them into harm's way unless it is absolutely necessary. Will they ever trust us again?"

By: rushmc

rushmc — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:18:50 -0800

So does that make them any less deserving of our respect? If they don't join for idealistic reasons and don't perform honorably while enlisted—sure, that makes them less deserving of respect than someone who does both. Stop playing dumb.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:31:46 -0800

If they don't join for idealistic reasons and don't perform honorably while enlisted That's stating the obvious. But even someone who joins for mundane reasons and behaves honorably is deserving of a "certain measure" (my words) of respect for surviving a dangerous situation, since he has first hand knowledge of what that situation does to someone, which you and I do not possess, and that I respect.

By: keswick

keswick — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 19:00:58 -0800

Hey Jon, are you reading my mind again?

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 21:37:05 -0800

I'm reaching? Oh, for fuck's sake, keswick, have you ever left the comfy and safe environs of mommy's house? You go take a good walk through one of America's poverty districts and tell me that those kids have any other realistic options. When you're dead poor and not too bright, there aren't a whole lot of options.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Thu, 29 Jul 2004 22:24:40 -0800

If, as I suspect, you actually meant "dishonorably," jonmc, then it is clear to me that you and I define "respect" differently.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Fri, 30 Jul 2004 06:47:25 -0800

no I actually meant "honorably," rush. Soldiers who behave dishonorably (like any other citizen) need to be, well, dishonored. I'm reaching? Oh, for fuck's sake, keswick, have you ever left the comfy and safe environs of mommy's house? Have you? I've known plenty of people who have come from poverty-level backgrounds, and while the military offerred a way out for some, others took academics or just plain old day to day working life as a means of improvement. The effectiveness of all these paths is certainly open to debate fff, but let's not make blanket statements. I may be coming on a bit strong but when I hear white folks pontificating about the ghetto I'm always reminded of that episode of All In The Family where Archie and Meathead surprise two black burglars. After one of Archie's rants Meathead says "Don't listen to him, he dosen't know what living in the ghetto can do to a man." The burglar answers, "and you do?"

By: rushmc

rushmc — Fri, 30 Jul 2004 08:00:23 -0800

no I actually meant "honorably," rush. Soldiers who behave dishonorably (like any other citizen) need to be, well, dishonored. Then you're missing my point, which seems to be pretty much the same as your point.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Fri, 30 Jul 2004 09:04:12 -0800

Then you're missing my point, which seems to be pretty much the same as your point. More or less, although the "idealistic reasons" bit seemed odd. A guy who joined for college money or to learn aircraft mechanics, but wound up serving honorably in combat gets my respect, too.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Fri, 30 Jul 2004 19:09:38 -0800

Okay, my "and" there could have easily been misread. I was speaking in an "and/or" sense to counter some of the claims of others above that merely wearing a uniform was enough to deserve respect, regardless of why the wearer was wearing it or what he did while wearing it. Obviously, that is simplistic and just plain wrong. Would one respect a serial killer who happened to be serving in the army? A soldier who burned villages and killed civilians in Vietnam (or Iraq)? It's not the uniform, it's the man.