Daily Show: Marines in Berkeley

[navy09]

Military service has a lot to do with politics. We are the ultimate executioners of the administrations foreign "diplomacy." I don't see why someone would or should join the military if they disagree with the direction that our government has taken, as many people in the U.S. currently do with Iraq.

I totally disagree. Being in the military is about serving your country and doing your duty. What does current policy have to do with whether or not you join the military? Besides, with major national leadership changes taking place every few years, how could you possibly join up to support one president/congress when their time in office is so limited?

Whether or not I think our presence in Iraq is total BS and we should get out ASAP has NO bearing on how I will do my job once commissioned.

I do think that it's a civic duty for Americans to put up a fight when they think the government is doing something unjust. Many of our founding fathers felt the same way. I don't think it's fair to call someone "unpatriotic" simply because they are speaking out for an opinion opposes our government.

Well said. Voicing your opinion is a luxury we enjoy in this country. When there is a conservative president in office, you're going to see more liberals protesting. My guess is that if Sen. Obama is elected you will see more conservatives standing up to protest his actions. It doesn't mean they are unpatriotic.

 

[Spekkio]

I totally disagree. Being in the military is about serving your country and doing your duty. What does current policy have to do with whether or not you join the military? Besides, with major national leadership changes taking place every few years, how could you possibly join up to support one president/congress when their time in office is so limited?

Because if the President gives an order, such as invade Iraq, we can't turn around and say "sorry, sir, but I disagree with your political views and cannot carry out this order."

 

[navy09]

Because if the President gives an order, such as invade Iraq, we can't turn around and say "sorry, sir, but I disagree with your political views and cannot carry out this order."

Uh, ya...I don't think you're totally understanding my post/ what's your point?

 

[Spekkio]

Uh, ya...I don't think you're totally understanding my post/ what's your point?

Same as it was before: we're involved in a controversial and now unpopular war. By offering to serve, you are endorsing the political decision to wage it in the first place. Not everyone is ok with that.

 

[armada1651]

By offering to serve, you are endorsing the political decision to wage it in the first place.

Absolutely not. See my other post.

 

[Herc_Dude]

Same as it was before: we're involved in a controversial and now unpopular war. By offering to serve, you are endorsing the political decision to wage it in the first place. Not everyone is ok with that.

Hmm, I don't think everyone who joined after the Iraq war started (or when it was obvious we were going) gave their stamp of approval on the political decision to go to war. I'm sure everyone has their opinions on how it could be fought differently as well. However, that doesn't mean we will carry out our job (orders) any differently or with any reservation, but I think I know what you are trying to say.

 

[navy09]

Spekkio: Dude, you seem pretty sharp so I don't want to flame you or anything but....

You're wayyyyyyy off! Joining is by no means an endorsement of current foreign policy. I definitely don't agree with a lot of our foreign policy but I want to do my part. I'm just one guy, there are tons of people in the military who don't love the CINC. When you take the oath you swear your allegiance to the Constitution, not the president, congress, or anyone else.

 

[m0tbaillie]

Same as it was before: we're involved in a controversial and now unpopular war. By offering to serve, you are endorsing the political decision to wage it in the first place. Not everyone is ok with that.

There is and historically has always been a very clear delineation between the military and politics. Unfortunately, this may or may not be true in the upper echelons of senior military leadership (i.e. when you're seeing stars) but hey, that is beside the point.

There are plenty of people serving in the military and actively joining the military that may or may not agree with the current doings, policies, and foreign interests of our government.

I may or may not be one of those people. I know there are plenty other on these boards, at OCS, the Academy, ROTC, and in the Fleet. There is no implicit notion that joining the military means you necessarily agree with the current leadership, only an explicit promise that you will obey the lawful orders of those above you (to put it very simply) and an implicit promise to yourself that you will act in the best interests of your country, comrades, self, peers, and those above and below you.

/end rant

edit: that second and last paragraph is entirely my opinion and solely my interpretation of the military and my mentality towards service; take it with a large grain of salt.

 

[Spekkio]

There is and historically has always been a very clear delineation between the military and politics. Unfortunately, this may or may not be true in the upper echelons of senior military leadership (i.e. when you're seeing stars) but hey, that is beside the point.

Actually, throughout most of history, national leaders were also military leaders -- this has occurred so frequently that our founding fathers felt it necessary to include a clause in the Constitution that specifically says that our President cannot be an active duty military member. Even still, lots of politicians, particularly Presidents (like our current one), had military careers that preceded their political careers.

When you take the oath you swear your allegiance to the Constitution, not the president, congress, or anyone else.

And the Constitution makes the President the boss. Unless he gives an unlawful order, you're going to follow it. And Congress gives you your rank, so you might not want to piss them off too much, either.

Hmm, I don't think everyone who joined after the Iraq war started (or when it was obvious we were going) gave their stamp of approval on the political decision to go to war. I'm sure everyone has their opinions on how it could be fought differently as well. However, that doesn't mean we will carry out our job (orders) any differently or with any reservation, but I think I know what you are trying to say.

Personally speaking, I did not (and still don't) agree with the fact that we went into Iraq. I felt the reasons for it was a lot of political smoke, and that we'd end up with "holding a tiger by the tail" so to speak.

A large reason why I looked into and ultimately joined the Navy and not the Army or USMC is because I knew (well, thought -- discounting IA's) that in the Navy, I wouldn't be sent over to fight in a war with which I disagreed. I will say though that since then, I have changed my opinion of the matter and would even consider volunteering for an IA if we're still there in 3-4 years, mostly because I now view myself as part of a team and the desire to pitch in and help the team trumps any political viewpoints I might have about the situation.

So yes, you're right that people in the service, such as myself, will put political viewpoints aside to get the mission done. However, I'm just saying that not everyone views it that way, and I'm pretty sure a lot of civilians would look at any military member as ambassadors for the federal gov't. That's why we have all those classes in OCS about behaving properly and showing gov't support in front of civilians.

 

[m0tbaillie]

lots of politicians, particularly Presidents (like our current one), had military careers that preceded their political careers.

You're right. Military careers that preceeded their political career. That is, they did not traditionally overlap, but may have been back to back. Very big difference.

 

[Spekkio]

You're right. Military careers that preceeded their political career. That is, they did not traditionally overlap, but may have been back to back. Very big difference.

I appreciate you cutting and quoting 1/2 a sentence in order to point out a typo and subsequently define a word for me which I picked to use in a sentence.

I think it was pretty clear from what I wrote previously that I know what the word preceeded means. When I said that "most national leaders were also military leaders," I was speaking generally about all countries throughout history.

 

[SDNalgene]

Except, I'm not pretending they're not considered part of my party, I'm crossing my fingers and wishing they weren't, because they're rapid retards and their ridiculously inarticulate, cliche, rhetoric looks like they pulled it out of a document entitled "Fwd: fwd fwd: FWD: 9/11 CONSPIRACY THEORY BUSH ZIONIST REGIME".

There's a difference between siding with the views of the majority of the democratic party (not Pelosi, because she's a fool) and expressing and articulating those opinions, platforms, and views with relative coherence...and mashing it up into a smorgasboard of retarded one-liners and childish slogans mixed with borderline violence and a contemptuous attitude towards veterans and active duty folks alike.

They may call themselves democrats, but those are no peers nor constituents of mine.

Okay fine, fair enough. Unfortunately Pelosi is one of your party's leaders so it's a lot harder to disown her than the nutso fools I think we are talking about. I still think they are not so fringe and extreme compared to the rest of the Democratic party, but I will grant that you seem far more educated, rational, and articulate in your beliefs than your typical code pink style whack job.

 

[armada1651]

I appreciate you cutting and quoting 1/2 a sentence in order to point out a typo and subsequently define a word for me which I picked to use in a sentence.

I think it was pretty clear from what I wrote previously that I know what the word preceeded means. When I said that "most national leaders were also military leaders," I was speaking generally about all countries throughout history.

I'm pretty sure he quoted/bolded that not to point out the typo but rather to point out that your statement was refuting your own argument...which has happened more than once here.

 

[m0tbaillie]

I appreciate you cutting and quoting 1/2 a sentence in order to point out a typo and subsequently define a word for me which I picked to use in a sentence.

Too be 110% honest, I didn't even notice that you made a typo. I honestly only placed emphasis on that word because of the fact that you used it, not because you misspelled it. We're attempting to engage in (lol) intelligent discourse here, I'm not going refute your arguments by pointing out your spelling mistake. That would make me a huge tool.

Okay fine, fair enough. Unfortunately Pelosi is one of your party's leaders so it's a lot harder to disown her than the nutso fools I think we are talking about. I still think they are not so fringe and extreme compared to the rest of the Democratic party, but I will grant that you seem far more educated, rational, and articulate in your beliefs than your typical code pink style whack job.

I agree entirely, as do many of my friends who are themselves self-described democrats. The political spectrum is a continuum having infinitely many shades, there is no black and white, and there is absolutely no "with us or against us" mentality feasible. There do exist, however, a plethora of people that haven't been clued into that fact, i.e. a myriad of both democrats and republicans who will pick and choose fencepost issues and stand fast just for the sake of being opposed to the other side. That is Pelosi. You have your democrats who describe themselves as liberal, but aren't afraid to disagree with members of the party or on particular issues. Then you have your fringe idiots as I mentioned below, the Code Pink-esque dipshits who resort to childish name-calling and ridiculous, utterly bullshit strawman arguments. And then you have your "moderate" democrats. Democrats who follow current events, who watch C-SPAN, who can cut through b/s rhetoric like a knife through a turd. I very much consider myself to be in the last category, and I'd say many of my friends who happen to be like-minded do as well. It is very easy to spot someone on either end of the political spectrum who likes to spout aggrandized rhetoric or one-liners they gleaned from watching CNN for thirty seconds.

To me, the majority of Congress at present seems to have a curious disposition in that they, as I somewhat touched on a second ago, will pick an issue and align themselves along either side of it regardless of where they or their respective constituency may truly stand. The political term for this is 'douchebaggery', and unfortunately, politicians have been doing this for thousands of years. It is also wise to point out that Nancy Pelosi, despite her position, is a mere pawn. She is an oddity in that despite being in a position of high power and influence, she more or less could not make an intelligent, well-conceived decision to save her life - she is all about saving face.

 

[Spekkio]

I'm pretty sure he quoted/bolded that not to point out the typo but rather to point out that your statement was refuting your own argument...which has happened more than once here.

I didn't refute my own argument at all; m0t misinterpretted what I said entirely. He said that historically, there was a clear delineation between military and politics. That's an incorrect statement, since most national leaders [of every country in the world on the whole] have been military leaders as well. I think the part in brackets was clearly implied when I went on to say that our forefathers felt it necessary to include a clause in the Constitution that specifically prevents such a thing from happening. When I brought up that a lot of our Presidents and other politicians have a background of military service, I simply meant to say that there is more of a link between military and politics than m0t seems to think.