Does Wearing Your Nations Uniform Automatically Ensure a High Moral Ground?

by hillary_step 45 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  BurnTheShips

  Does Wearing Your Nations Uniform Automatically Ensure a High Moral Ground?

  No. And only an idiot would suggest this or create a thread attacking a straw man you created in a different thread.

  I have been reading with interest a thread on this Board today that is discussing the treatment of US veterans. I have noticed that when such subjects are discussed there is an automatic assumption that those who don the uniforms of their respective nations, they somehow are automatically walking on a higher moral ground.

  Ceteris paribus, when a man puts his money where his mouth is, served honorably and suffered the consequences, he is entitled to a measure of respect. To do less is despicable.

  When a person puts on the uniform and agrees to fight for his or her nation, they have taken a personal philosophical position, which means that surely they must take personal responsibility for their actions and choices. This is one reason that I have absolutely no interest in what Mccain survived as POW, he is no more in love with the US than the bus driver on Broadway.

  You have no interest in McCain's background not because of a principled philosophical stance on your own part, but because McCain is on a different end of the political spectrum from yourself, you dishonest man.

  It is a war that were I American and drafted I would have taken part in, because from my own philosophic and political position it is a war fought for a sinister agenda, to serve the few.

  That is not even coherent.

  The Armed Forces are a professional body, but no more professional than is doctoring, keeping clean our waters, maintaining our electricity supply, or training air traffic controllers to keep our skies safe.

  Neither doctors, water-cleaners, electricians, or air traffic controllers are placed in a position of life or death as are armed forces members, members of the police force, and others such as firefighters.

  I recall reading in Susan Brownmiller's classic book on rape, 'Against Our Will', about two Baptist's who refused to take up the draft and head out to Saigon and were imprisoned. One of them was repeatedly raped every day for two years by criminals who thought them 'cowards' and easy targets. When interviewed at the end of his sentence the young man said he would prefer to endure what bhe had for another two years than fight in what he viewed was an immoral war. The criminal actually thought that they had a higher moral ground because they would have taken up arms and fought!

  I believe in the supremacy of the individual conscience in these matters and if this is truly a case of this then they should be applauded. There are just wars, and unjust wars. We all have to decide as individuals whether we are to participate or support if the matter arises.

  BTS
• 

  OUTLAW

  Good Morning HS..Yes,individuals do have a responsibility to take a moral high ground..But..It`s not as easy when your occupation is soldier.....When your a soldier,you can`t pick and choose which war your going to fight in..You can however,choose how you will conduct yourself during that war..........The fact is,we need soldiers..Theres no getting away from it......There will always be some insane bully with power..Ready to take away the freedom of entire nations..................................OUTLAW
• 

  hillary_step

  JK666,

  They are heroes.

  Why?

  Fadeout,

  That's a new one for me... judging soldiers for doing their job and answering the call from their country.

  You don't get out much do you?

  The judgement lies in the decision. Think about it. A person decides to wear a uniform, he must take responsibility for his actions. Read my opening post and you will note that I am not a pacifist. Some wars are more 'moral' than others. You have assumed that regardless of the reason for a person wearing that uniform, they have automatically been given the higher moral ground for doing so. In doing so, you illustrate exactly the flawed reasoning that prompted this thread.

  ....And you can knock of the 'read it in the WTS attitude'. You are trying to smokescreen the fact that either you have not understood the philosophic nature of my thread, or that your critical thinking processes are limited. Either way, look to yourself.

  Burn,

  Your post is full of such petulant, revengeful, dumbass, ad hominem arguments that I am not even going to respond to it apart from letting the readers know that I handed you your flighty and contradictory arse on a plate on this very issue on another thread. I note that you did not even attempt to defend your argument then, and are still not doing so now.

  Just to note for example, your stated poition that doctors do not deal in life and death decisions is absurd, but I suspect that five minutes AFTER you posted that, your realized that. ;)

  Get your ducks in a row next time Burn, though I have a feeling that you actually enjoy the verbal flagellation you get, and repeatedly so from so many posters, due to your lack of due diligence in researching and reading posts. Is this anything to do with your re-entry into a religious Catholic life? ;)

  HS
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Your post is full of such petulant, revengeful, dumbass, ad hominem arguments that I am not even going to respond to it apart from letting the readers know that I handed you your flighty and contradictory arse on a plate on this very issue on another thread.

  Whatever, you lied and juked and jived on the other thread.

  Just to note for example, your stated poition that doctors do not deal in life and death decisions is absurd, but I suspect that five minutes AFTER you posted that, your realized that. ;)

  There you go restating what I write and distorting it. You're just doing it to yank my chain aren't you? Doctors, in the course of their employ, are not normally in danger of losing their own lives. That's what I said.

  BTS
• 

  minimus

  You know, Hillary, your questions and reasoning sounds very similar to moi.

  This does not bode well for you, my friend.

  Of course the answer to your question is : nope.
• 

  hillary_step

  Burn,

  Whatever, you lied and juked and jived on the other thread.

  lol...yes, everybody on this Board knows that I lie and juke and jive and that of course, you do not.

  You realize of course that I am not the only person who repeatedly draws attention to your half-baked, half-evolved, half-researched thread and posts? I believe that you STILL do not actually understand what this thread is really about but are actually content to stumble around in some sort of myopic intellectual dance. Entertaining it is true, uselful it is not.

  The only valuable comment you have made on this thread is this one:

  It is a war that were I American and drafted I would have taken part in, because from my own philosophic and political position it is a war fought for a sinister agenda, to serve the few.

  That is not even coherent.

  lol...You are correct. That sentence is not coherent. Must be the painkillers.

  HS
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Must be the painkillers.

  Well...that explains it!
• 

  Fadeout

  Fadeout:

  That's a new one for me... judging soldiers for doing their job and answering the call from their country.

  H_S:

  The judgement lies in the decision. Think about it. A person decides to wear a uniform, he must take responsibility for his actions.

  The judgment does NOT lie in their decision. As you have clearly stated, the judgment lies in YOUR personal opinion of what consitutes a "moral war." And if you decide the war is not "moral", the judgment on the soldier is made. What kind of world are you envisioning in which soldiers simply "opt out" of wars they aren't particularly enthusiastic about?

  "Afghanistan? God, I hate the desert... I'm gonna sit this one out, Sir."

  "Understood, Private. You just take care of things here at the base... unless that offends your moral sensibilities..."

  "Hmm, now that you mention it, I am bothered by our lax recycling policy here... think I'll take a week off."

  H_S:

  You have assumed that regardless of the reason for a person wearing that uniform, they have automatically been given the higher moral ground for doing so.

  Wearing the uniform counts for little; living up to a difficult committment at great personal cost counts for more.

  Why you refuse to respect even battle-proven dedication and courage is, I'm sure, baffling to most observers.
• 

  hillary_step

  Fadeout,

  Thank you for your comments, and you are half-way to actually understanding the point of the thread, which is closer than many who have commented. I am going to simplify this.

  You seem to agree that a person who fights for his country, for whatever reason, is automatically ensured a high moral ground for doing so. Do I have this correctly? I of course disagree in principle with this notion, as it is based on national and tribal identity and not on firmly grounded ethics or morality. I see the soldier as not more valuable a member of society than a doctor, sewage worker, or cafe owner.

  Do you accept that some wars are waged on firmer moral grounds than others? Given that some wars may be more 'moral' that other wars, on what ETHICAL basis do you make such a comment? Can you see the moral dilemma that this presents?

  Now, an example and this is only used as an example as it is present news, not because of any political affiliation. Were I a US citizen, I would not be voting either Republican or Democrat. John McCain's supporters are very quick to play the 'war hero' card. Should this for example make any difference to whether a person is fit for political office?

  HS
• 

  BurnTheShips

  I would not be voting either Republican or Democrat. John McCain's supporters are very quick to play the 'war hero' card. Should this for example make any difference to whether a person is fit for political office?

  All other things being equal, someone with a distinguished record of military service and personal sacrifice for the nation is more fit, all other things being equal.

  Don't you agree?

  BTS