"It is the soldier, not the reporter who has given us the freedom...

"It is the soldier, not the reporter who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag."
~Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, Sergeant, USMC

i would have to say that i would have to side with the soldiers almost 100% of the time. even the crazy bush loving guys over in iraq right now, i'm with them. they're just pawns in this game no matter how much they support the war. i reserve my ire for those who won't put their lives on the line for what they believe in.

that destroys the printing press and jails the journalists. It is the soldier who burns the poet's books. It is the soldier that guns down the campus organizer and arrests those who demonstrate.
Soldiers do what they're told. Sometimes they protect freedom and sometimes they destroy it. Clearly, something else is the key factor.

Its good to talk about positive things soldiers do, but we shouldn't pretend that an army=freedom.

He/She was pointing out the obvious. This quote can be taken out of context to support right wing crap too. See my post below.

FSC

still prejudice. I am just as aware that the military could be used to obtain martial law in this or any country as the next DUer.

Yet, because I grew up knowing someone who actually served and was* a good person, I feel compelled to say, "Don't call all soldiers dirtbags because you disagree with this war or war in general."

What seems obvious to you sounds like a cheap shot to me. We wouldn't HAVE a United States of America to be FREE in AT ALL if not for the original men who stood up to England. And how many more Jews or other people would have been killed if we hadn't gone into Germany?

Have we had a lot of abuse of military power? Yes. Am I against that? Yes. But what I have asked is to Dismantle the MILITARY during Peacetime and not the SOLDIER. Why is that so much to ask?

If we want the REAL America back, then it's INNOCENT until proven guilty even for soldiers and we need to get all the facts before we rush to judgement.

I think if people claim to be peaceful then they should be tolerant even with those that they believe are causing problems. Those who are interested in peace need to understand and acknowledge the complex human emotions involved in caring enough to serve in the military in order to find common ground to build the peace upon.

If people just get up and rant and blame the soldiers or whoever, it is just spouting off, NOT being part of the solution, which ultimately involves figuring out how to peacefully co-exist with people we think are wrong.

It becomes US vs THEM again and the sarcasm of these posts lead me to believe that some people who claim to want peace wouldn't be able to stop being mean and spiteful long enough for anyone to enjoy it.

*(He's dead now because the VA mis-diagnosed his colon cancer as hemorroids for years.)

... that Freedom =



doesn't have warriors on the other half of the equation somewhere

(be they ARMY, some other branch, REPORTER, rebel, or participant of discourse)

... that Freedom = taking responsibility and doing what you can and should do to serve your country faithfully every step of the way.

especially recognizing the range/diversity of viewpoints for what is 'right.'


We're in the arena of " 'It is B&W!' vs. 'It's not so simple as B&W!' style argument.

...without a free press, nobody would know what we were fighting for.
...eh, draw some conclusions from that and the current situation....

It started a good thread.

I think it's an inane quote, but that's just my opinion.

Your opinion is valid and so is his in it's own way.

Not every soldier is honorable and especially when they are being ordered to do the wrong things day after day, but an honorable man is an honorable man.

In whatever way a person puts their heart and their soul into serving their country it should be respected.

I think the thing that makes your post hard to read is that it is ONLY about the soldier's value and it puts down the other things people do.

People have strong feelings about that, but they SHOULD be respectuful even so.

Sorry.... :shrug:

Replace the word soldier with SS or Hitler Youth and see if people feel the same way.

The SS were merely pawns of their commanders. Those Nazis at the camps then were merely following orders when they herded so called undesireables into the gas chambers or to what would become their grave.

Following orders was not defensible at the Nuremburg trials nor should it be defensible for what is being done in Iraq in the name of the American people.

Just as Germans of a particular age are asked, "what did you or your parents do during the war?" so too will we be asked, "what did you do to challenge George W Bush during the Iraq war?" Saying the soldier is beyond fault is not challenging George W Bush.

Simply because they are soldiers they should be drawn and quartered or something?

All I'm saying is hear people out, even the soldiers, and see if our common humanity can win out instead of our reactionary anger.

How is going after every soldier, any soldier, any different than going after Saadam when it was Osama Bin Laden who started this mess on 9/11?

In the Nuremburg trials there was evidence and a process. How can we string up American soldiers without a fair trial and consider ourselves to be logical and civilized?

...is who is giving the orders.

I've been having a problem with this quote ever since some right wing asshole put it up outside his office before the election.

He also had a Bush Cheney sticker up. I put up a Kerry sticker, and my boss asked me to take it down. I said not until he did. she said "Well, I'm not his manager."

I said, "Well it sounds like you and his manager need to have a pow-wow. Mine doesn't come down til his does."

Eventually it did.

FSC

that gives us that.

Come on.... we are the most powerful nation ever in existance. Soldiers mean nothing to the powers that be.:cry:

Once upon a time, when we really had a free press, you could say that the soldier fought for it. Now, our soldiers fight for someone else, and our press is not free (blogs excluded!).

Don't be an amateur.

You did good.

Now, come on and turn that frown upside down.

Or I'll hurt you............ :evilgrin:

Unfortunately, it's the corrupt politicians who all to often misuse the good soldier to shame us all.

Thank you for your service. Sincerely.

The last time an American soldier fought for freedom was maybe Korea, definitely WWII. And the notion that the courage and sacrifices of people who have even DIED for civil rights, labor rights, etc. don't stack up next to the mindless, unquestioning patriotism of a soldier who will do whatever he is told is RIDICULOUS.

Every bit of workplace protection, civil rights, civil liberties we enjoy is due to the efforst of liberal, even radical activists - NOT soldiers. Soldiers couldn't give a crap whether or not this country is free - they just see to it that the present government stays in power. They do NOTHING to keep us free.

In fact, should the government eventually become too oppressive and the people were to rise up, I don't doubt for a second that they would, when ordered FIRE ON THEIR FELLOW AMERICANS. They've done it before.

You should know better.

don't place the blame on the pawn when the king is the one with the knife in your back

But saying that they are fighting for freedom is jingoistic nonsense.

There are many soldiers I admire - Smedley Butler comes to mind.

The founding fathers designed a government where the military would be pretty much dismantled in peacetime. They had the right idea - we've made war an integral part of the economy, and it's sick.

I'm a peaceful person, but tolerance is something that has to be all the way real man.

Dismantle the military during peacetime, not the soldiers.

MY ASS!

My Ass :kick:

... rather than those who deceived and exploited your dad.


But if you want to think like a freeper "my country, right or wrong" - it's your brain.


I'm glad my dad had flat feet and blind in one eye, so that LBJ & Nixon couldn't murder him on the altar of that sham of a war.

My dad made a choice - things happened that sucked. We dealt with it and didn't have to go around complaining about whose fault is was.

I'm trying to explain how I think we can be more open minded about this and not attack others.

Why you would accuse me of being a freeper or of thinkng "my country, right or wrong" if you had read my posts is beyond me.

Your dad didn't have to deal with those things, great. But it doesn't mean you can't learn to understand the people that did.

I'm saying that judging every single soldier as having made NO CONTRIBUTION to our Freedom is as Backward as saying ONLY Soldiers Fighting for us made US free.

Sorry - this was a duplicate. Changed it so it wouldn't be as boring.

Sure, I'll say it: "I'm really sorry you men and women had to die for a war started over lies and propaganda. I'm even more sorry that forty years later, it seems we haven't yet learned the lessons that you paid for, in pain and blood."

No matter how it got started, you have to find a way to end it with the least damage.

I am so mad at * for his bull headed lies and disregard for human life, but people who put their lives on the line still deserve our respect - for their intent, not the pResident's agenda that got them there.

I got beaten up quite a lot -- until I learned to fight back.

Your statement does NOTHING to refute my point, and instead tries to argue that instead that I have no right to make it.

I respect soldiers, and am grateful for their sacrifices. But my rights do NOT come from the barrels of their guns, as this jingoistic, self-serving militaristic quote directly implies.

jingoistic and self-serving simply because you got involved in a fight that you had to finish if you wanted a ride back to your country?

I'm sure there are plenty of assholes in the service who fit your description just fine and even the guy who put the quote up would probably agree with you and me that some of them need to be put in their place.

All I'm saying is that there are people in the service who had ideals of doing the right thing when they stepped up and it's through that part of their nature that we can relate to them and bring them back to fight for America in the other ways that are just as important.

If we throw out these angry retorts to people who've been through what soldiers go through during war, we'll lose the chance to build peace. We'll put them forever outside of our tiny little circle of who is good and who is bad and that just sounds too much like fundie for me to be comfortable with it.

It's hard on a board like this to fully explain oneself and I still don't understand how you perceived that I argued you didn't have the right to make your point by what I said. Maybe the subject line?

What I was alluding to is that when someone is punching you or shooting at you, a lot of options go out the window, and most of us have to go back to grade school or junior high to remember physical fights.

I spent a lot of time walking into fights and breaking them up. I tried to do my best to get people to live up to the values I knew about them because most people would rather solve problems without fighting or being hurtful, but in the middle of fear or rage they forget what they are about and only get into being the one to make it out alive or being the one to win.

a propagation of the lie that they died for, and ultimately extremely disrespectful of their deaths?


Yes. Obviously.

Being willing to fight for your country shouldn't be what we are putting down though.

Fighting when there are other options available or fighting for the wrong reasons, but not the willingness to put your life on the line for your country.

Even those of us who are peaceful may yet in our lifetime have to stand up and physically defend our country. Who knows with the way things are going when tanks might roll up and establish military law here? Could be our own, could be others.

If they are our own, those of us who see the human being beneath the uniform may be the best defense the rest of you have.

The idea is to fight FOR the right thing and against the wrong things and to know the difference so we can salvage as much humanity as possible.

They sure as hell didn't die protecting our freedom. Vietnam did not threaten our freedom and as we have seen, a communist victory in Vietnam did not threaten our freedom.

Nothing to do with freedom.

Maybe they should have paid more attention to the reporters.

i just see a lot of the anti-war opinions (that i share) lose focus and turn into anti-soldier attitudes, that's all

total load of (((crap)))).

And to those who are unable to read my words without misconstruing them into an attack on our innocent, deceived soldiers, I feel sorry for you.

This is the part I'm having a problem with:

<snip>
Soldiers couldn't give a crap whether or not this country is free - they just see to it that the present government stays in power. They do NOTHING to keep us free.


Nothing? NOTHING. Really?

myself included.



How, exactly, do you know how all soldiers feel?

Many young men and women join the military because they want to serve this country. Many are LIBERALS, and many are willing to die for YOUR freedom. The assumption that all soldiers would blindly follow illegal or immoral orders is ridiculous. Heroes can be found everywhere.

This country targets poor young men and women, those who have very few options, and entices them into the military with a promise of a college education and a "way out"

Do you think that military training strips these people of their humanity? There are good and bad people everywhere.



Is the honor that you give to those that "helped" to secure your freedom limited to the last time they died for it?

Despite the misuse of the military by our corrupt government, many soldiers ARE helping people all over the world.



Tho people that fought and died for those freedoms deserve to be honored ALSO. One does not negate the other.

but if you look at the objective facts, during my lifetime, they have fought for American business interests and for mindless and pointless "projection of American power."

We were working to help the people of Bosnia. Was that also a fight for American business interests? That is a serious question. Perhaps I was brain washed, by my servitude.

I was thinking more of Vietnam, interventions in Lebanon and the Dominican Republic, advisors to the brutal regimes of El Salvador and Guatemala, the invasions of Grenada and Panama, the Gulf War, the invasion of Iraq, and supporting the overthrow of Aristide in Haiti. I may have left out a few.

None of those are "missions" to be proud of, no matter what the participants thought they were doing or no matter how bravely they went into battle.

As far as being "proud" of service, as many have already stated, the soldier serves. The civilian government determines how and where that soldier serves.

I served as an Environmental Health officer. We sent people all around the world with the same mission. We ensured that people were protected from contaminates in the food and water. Our mission was to protect the soldiers first, and then the local community. I do not have a single regret, as far as my 6 years of Army service. I did not participate in a single operation that brought harm to anyone.

I was very fortunate. Today, many people that served with me are being called back to active duty. They will have a tough decision to make. While DUers talk about a draft, people that served with me are subject to it now.

"How, exactly, do you know how all soldiers feel?"

Millions of them oppose this war, but how many ever say so to the embedded reporters. Millions HATE Bush but are ORDERED to cheer when they see him.

"Many young men and women join the military because they want to serve this country. Many are LIBERALS, and many are willing to die for YOUR freedom. The assumption that all soldiers would blindly follow illegal or immoral orders is ridiculous. Heroes can be found everywhere."

They are not liberals until they leave the service or claim CO status during a fraudulent war such as this. In their role, they are not allowed to be liberals, or any other political identity. THey are infantry, or electricians, or whatever - their role is assigned to them, and their opinions are 100% irrelevant.

"This country targets poor young men and women, those who have very few options, and entices them into the military with a promise of a college education and a "way out""

Duh.

"Do you think that military training strips these people of their humanity? There are good and bad people everywhere. "

I didn't say there weren't - but military service is a form of indentured servitude. You don't get to pick and choose the orders you want to obey.

The "help" our well-meaning soldiers give people around the world is part of the pentagon propaganda campaign to legitimize illegal invasions, especially in the case of occupied lands like Iraq. Have you not noticed how fond the ultra-right-wing fascist Fox News is of emphasizing such stories?

"Tho people that fought and died for those freedoms deserve to be honored ALSO. One does not negate the other."

I didn't say soldiers shouldn't be honored. Their selfless sacrifice is honorable, if misguided. But they are not fighting for freedom. And the original post claimed that the activist's sacrifice did NOT count.

It is true, soldiers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice which severely restricts their rights to "free speech" But, as you stated, that does not mean that soldiers do not have an opinion. That does not mean that they will blindly follow illegal orders.



Until you are put in a position to "go to war or go to jail" it is difficult to determine what you would actually do. CO status is not an easy thing to get. If I get a call, I will have to make a real decision. Is this something that I am willing to go to jail over? I am a medical person, a non-combatant.

According to your judgment, If I do not go to jail or leave the country, I am not a liberal. In case you have not noticed there is a back door draft going on. Leaving the service is not exactly an option.

Many people that serve today, joined under a very different government. They did not sign up for **'s little "war on terra". The blame for the current situation rests solely in the hands of the government.



As a soldier you are required to follow all lawful orders. I agree, you do not get to pick and choose the orders you will follow, but soldiers are duty bound not to follow unlawful orders.

I can only speak from personal experience when it comes to what soldiers do around the world to "help people" I was on active duty during the Clinton Administration, and we sent troops to Haiti, Somalia and Bosnia.

In my field, as an Environmental Health Officer, we deployed around the world to assist in natural disasters, to establish potable drinking water and to help re-establish sanitary conditions. I do not think it was part of a propaganda campaign, but perhaps I was just brainwashed.



I agree that every person that chooses to fight to preserve our freedoms should be honored. I agree that what we are doing in Iraq is wrong, the soldiers are not fighting for freedom, they are fighting for a corrupt government owned by corrupt corporations. But, I do not blame the soldiers for that.

It is true, soldiers are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice which severely restricts their rights to "free speech" But, as you stated, that does not mean that soldiers do not have an opinion. That does not mean that they will blindly follow illegal orders.

Perhaps its different in other types of commands, but in mine, (an intelligence command), freedom of speech really isn't limited. It's only limited while on duty, or if you're acting as an official representative (meaning: in uniform) of the particular branch. While I was stationed at Ft. Meade, I went to all sorts of protests and marches in Washington. I just couldn't do it in uniform. Did my superiors know? I'd imagine, considering how my barracks room was decorated, and they had to do inspections. Nobody gave me any crap about it. Also, you're right about not blindly following illegal orders. I feel it is the duty of a serviceman to object and disobey an order that is either illegal or immoral. Such a clause is written into the UCMJ, Article 92.

Until you are put in a position to "go to war or go to jail" it is difficult to determine what you would actually do. CO status is not an easy thing to get. If I get a call, I will have to make a real decision. Is this something that I am willing to go to jail over? I am a medical person, a non-combatant.

According to your judgment, If I do not go to jail or leave the country, I am not a liberal. In case you have not noticed there is a back door draft going on. Leaving the service is not exactly an option.

Many people that serve today, joined under a very different government. They did not sign up for **'s little "war on terra". The blame for the current situation rests solely in the hands of the government.

Very well stated. Even though I'm not in Iraq, and for that matter have never been sent to the Middle East, in my duties, I contribute information to wartime commanders that probably got people killed. Does that make me any less of a liberal? I also like to eat red meat, and I have no problem wearing fur. Does that make me less of a liberal?

As a soldier you are required to follow all lawful orders. I agree, you do not get to pick and choose the orders you will follow, but soldiers are duty bound not to follow unlawful orders.

I can only speak from personal experience when it comes to what soldiers do around the world to "help people" I was on active duty during the Clinton Administration, and we sent troops to Haiti, Somalia and Bosnia.

In my field, as an Environmental Health Officer, we deployed around the world to assist in natural disasters, to establish potable drinking water and to help re-establish sanitary conditions. I do not think it was part of a propaganda campaign, but perhaps I was just brainwashed.

I hardly doubt that your commendable service was part of a propaganda campaign. Helping people is never the wrong thing to do.

I agree that every person that chooses to fight to preserve our freedoms should be honored. I agree that what we are doing in Iraq is wrong, the soldiers are not fighting for freedom, they are fighting for a corrupt government owned by corrupt corporations. But, I do not blame the soldiers for that.

Nor should anybody else. The last time I checked, the commander-in-chief issued orders to the SecDef, who issued orders to his generals, who issued orders for Soldiers, sailors, Airmen, and Marines to be deployed. No individual serviceman wrote his own deployment orders.

We have no disagreement, I just have a different way of saying things. For example, I don't look at "soldier" as a person. It is a role that a person inhabits - it is the product of a great deal of training and mind control (the break'em down & build'em up of basic training) that allows otherwise kind, sensitive young men and women to be killers if need be. For me there are all kinds inhabiting that shell that is "the soldier" - liberals, religious people, sociopaths - all walks of life, but the shell is identical - the soldier, which carries no personal responsibility for its actions in the name of the state.

The soldiers are all identical, but the PEOPLE inside the soldiers are unique.

And no, I don't blame them. I have a good friend who was in the marine reserves, and he had to go to Iraq, he was just finishing up college and didn't want to jeopardize his GI Bill, or his soon-to-begin career, and I don't blame him for that. He's a great guy, hates Bush, and a liberal. But when he was in Iraq, he was a marine, nothing more and nothing less.

I was glad he made it back safe and sound.

:loveya:

This whole process of sorting out what we stand for is great.

It IS Democracy in action.

I know I am feeling the challange to make sure I'm not supporting soldiers just to be "politically correct" but to be true to my values of judging people not by my world view but the quality of their person and everything that made them who they are.

When the DUers rule the world we WILL have to be fair to everyone, you know. ;-)

serving humanity up to and including giving their life for their country.

And I agree with the problem with the original post:

"that the reporter or activist's et al... sacrifices did NOT count" is what makes that quote a problem, but responding in the same vein compounds the problem.

Soldiers are "usually" trained well before there is a war to go to and if the country is run correctly they only have to fight when no other options are available and someone is really asking for our help to get someone to quit attacking them.

The country isn't being run correctly. I think we can all agree on that fact.

:yourock:

A soldier does not GIVE us rights. They may be instrumental in helping to protect them, but to say that only through soldiers do we get freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, and freedom to protest goes entirely too far towards implying that the soldier can therefore, at any time, TAKE those rights back.

I take offense here, because the obvious implication is that if one fails to display proper respect to soldiers -- whether they are good men or bad -- we don't deserve these rights.

For reference, I give you the words of Mr. Jefferson:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315

I respect and appreciate what soldiers do. But what they don't do is GIVE anybody rights. You have the rights you have. Only you can choose to give them up -- as so many have.

I further add that only when the Press does its job are soldiers protected from being sent off to die in unjust, illegal wars. Through the voice of the poet, those who lack the means to be heard can be heard. Through the organization of the campus protestor, people can come together and shout a great loud "NO!" to the powers-that-be -- and know, each and every one of them, that they are not alone in their protest. And sometimes, it takes the burning of a flag to get the attention of those who would insist, "My country, never wrong".

Only when that protestor has that right, regardless whether the soldier LETS him do it, are we truly free.

-Technowitch

The initial blood bath that waged did GIVE us the right to establish this country as our own.

However once a Democracy is established the option to military action is something to not step into lightly - if ever.

I've said before, war is like suicide: it's always an option, you should try everything else first and usually if you keep preparing for it, someone dies.

Hopefully, when the press and everyone you mentioned does their job, including each and everyone of us, then we keep our Freedom going strong and can continue to dialogue and work things out without having to resort to force.

However, if it does come to marching up to Washington and standing up to those big boys in Washington, I'll be proud to have 1000's of soldiers standing next to me asking the pRes, "What the hell were you thinking man?"

Gee. And all these years that I've practiced law, I thought it was the Constitution.

Now, I understand that bloodshed preceded the writing of that document. My grasp of history isn't yet tenuous. But, the Constitution might just have easily emerged as a totalitarian document, making each of us essentially prisoners of the government.

Sort of like it is now with that ratbastard squatting in the White House.

But, that nonsense spewed by the good father is just that - chauvinistic nonsense from someone whose understanding of history has the breadth and depth of a human hair.

Our freedoms came from men - civilians - who valued freedom. They might just as easily have valued power, but they didn't. And that had nothing to do with soldiers.

And, for the record, I don't support any soldiers, ours or anyone's. I'm still caught up in the John Lennon fantasy of everyone laying down their arms.

I do not support the idea of our soldiers killing Iraqi civilians just because they're "following orders."

I do, though, support the soldiers who refuse to go to "fight" this illegal bitch of an invasion.

"Gee. And all these years that I've practiced law, I thought it was the Constitution."

Well, you're wrong. The Constitution simply establishes a system of Government designed to PROTECT the freedoms and liberties that are understood. As it says in the Declaration of Independence, whether you want to believe they came from a creator, or that they are inherent simply because we are humans, that's your preference. But the Constitution does not grant us freedoms.

"Our freedoms came from men - civilians - who valued freedom. They might just as easily have valued power, but they didn't. And that had nothing to do with soldiers."

Again, that completely goes against the ideals our country was founded on. Neither the Government nor the soldier grants us freedoms. They are there to PRESERVE them.

To imply that our Government grants us freedoms is to imply that the Government can take them away, and that's not the way its supposed to work.

In fact, the Declaration is precisely that - a declaration. Nothing more and nothing less, although it's enormously significant as a starting point. As a document having any legal bearing or power, you do know that it's worthless, don't you?

All our rights are delineated and guaranteed in our Constitution, which, along with codified and case law to enhance common law and judicial notice, pretty much define how we live here in the United States.

You're confusing "freedom" and "right." They're two very different concepts.

Now, if you believe that the Government cannot take away our "freedoms," you'd better start reading the newspapers.

And, if you think the Government cannot take away our "rights," you'd best go and read up on "Constitutional amendments." They both give and take away.

Check out Dred Scott, while you're about it. Every American needs to know about that case.

You are right that our rights are "delineated" and "guaranteed" by the Constitution- but that's different than the Constitution GRANTING us those rights. The Constitution only PROTECTS the freedoms which have already been established as basic human rights.
And as for the rule of law, any law restricting our freedom is only Constitutional so long as it does not restrict any inherent human liberties- or life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
You are also right that The Declaration of Independence carries no real legal weight, but that's why the Articles of Confederation and then the DOI were written- to codify those principles into a legal document where those rights could be protected. Or, to take it straight from the horse's mouth: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Whatever the semantics of it, those "rights" are guaranteed.
And, last I checked no Constitutional Amendment other than the 18th Amendment is intended to limit the right of the people- only the rights of the Government to limit the rights of the people.

Of course, there is that whole part about the right of the people to abolish a Gov't that is destructive of those ends...or something...I forget...anyway, God Bless 'Merica.

I wish you well.

like that a lot. My only question is would England have allowed us to do that if we hadn't made them stop imposing their rule of law upon us?

It is the reporter who keeps the government in check, not the soldier. It is the poet who has given us beauty worth defending, not the soldier. It is the campus organizer who prevents repression of ideas, not the soldier. It is the protester who burns the flag who reminds us that freedom is more than that which we find noble, not the soldier.

It is not the soldier who has given us freedom of the press. It is the Constitution which has given us freedom of the press. The authors of the Constitution were not soldiers. The soldier did not create the ideal; he defends it. Without the ideal, he is merely a man with a gun.

a lunch break
an eight hour work day
a 40 hour work week
social security
the right to belong to a labor union
paid vacation time

and weekends off

If Socialists hadn't threatened to join forces with communists, the Dems probably would have never picked up the ball and ran with it...


oh, and may the cosmic muffin bless the Wobblies!

Hitler's Germany put on a deadly impressive display of soldering, one powerful enough to bring a sizable portion of the world to its knees. But Nazi Germany also never had much use for a free press, poets, writers, teachers, clergy, philosophers, free thinkers or dissidents -- not to mention a significant segment of European culture. Obviously, WWII Germany was the antithesis of a free country.

The appeal that Father O'Brien makes is not without merit, but it's like the old argument that the heart is the most essential organ of the body, and not the brain, or whatever.

The soldier can do his job well, and it's deeply appreciated, but without freedom at home, then the country for which he fights is not free. And if our First Amendment rights are lost to a totalitarian government, all the soldiering in the world will not bring them back.

on edit: typos

There is a time for war, but the war they put you through was seriously messed up and I think you know that better than I do.

The honor of the soldier isn't in question here. My dad fought in the Korean Conflict and got shot up with machine gun fire while he was hanging in a tree in that God-forsaken land. He survived and the government took care of him - sort of. I respect him and everyone who lays their life on the line for the sake of another person's freedom.

I just believe there are more ways to lay your life down than to go to war. And if our brothers, sisters, fathers and friends go out and shed their blood to make us free, isn't it OUR obligation not to let it slide into bushit?

When our soldiers are sent out to kick the shit out of a bully and come home with the mission accomplished, then that is a just war.

When we bomb civilians and shoot policemen doing their duty because the Pentagon didn't have sense enough to listen to people who know what they are doing and have a real plan going in so our soldiers don't have to hang their asses out in the wind indefinately, then that is NOT the soldiers fault, it's the Commander in Chief who needs to answer for every flag draped coffin.

I support our soldiers, I'd just rather see them come home alive instead of dead and sooner rather than later.

And if you should attempt to *enjoy* any of these freedoms that these noble soldiers have singlehandedly given us, you're a traitor?

Puh-leeze. While I'm not interested in denigrating the sacrifice the military has made throughout this country's history, the poet, the campus organizer, and the protester have given meaning to these freedoms -- and some have paid the ultimate price.

If the quote was true we might as well be living in Sparta. I'll pass on Sparta, thanks, although Sgt. O'Brien is perfectly welcome to pretend HE lives there, as long as he doesn't take it too far -- like considering all women and non-soldiers to be slaves.

As an incentive to stay in and honor their country.

They're dying "so that Iraqis may be free".
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry in advance for my negative sounding post...But I can't think of a "freedom saving" war in my lifetime.

I don't believe we werge on the verge of "having to speak Korean".
I don't think the Vietnamese were plotting our overthrow.
Reagan really didn't stop the Evil Empire just before they invaded New York.
And Saddam was not going to stop our freedom to assemble.

I just think in the last 60 years our military has been exploited for reasons other than actual national security.

I fear more a government that advovates suspending the freedoms that we enjoy to ensure our security.
The only way a freedom has EVER been reclaimed is at the barrel of a gun. ESPECIALLY our right to dissent.

this guy was not only conscriped into catholocism, but also the US military. This guy is brainwashed to the Nth degree.

:puke:

And in far fewer words than I used.

so much for selfless service

Along with our founding fathers, the slaves who had to struggle for freedom, etc.

There were many pieces to the pie. Everybody thinks their piece is the biggest, or was the biggest.

And I was a soldier.

:shrug:

We all have an important role to play. Each person that sacrifices for freedom deserves our honor and respect. Thank you for your service.

It seems we have some that overestimate their role, and underestimate others, and even the other way around.

:)

The soldier, the reporter, the poet *and* the organizers *all* secure our freedoms.

This, of course, assumes that they're free to do their jobs. When the soldier is dispatched on foreign adventures unconnected to the nation's defense, and the reporter is--in a weird analogy--sent chasing Michael Jackson, our liberties stand relatively unguarded, and are immediately plundered.

We see today that only the poets and organizers are left to defend us, and they continue to do so, with all the zeal that we *should* see from service members and so-called reporters.

Here's an alternative reading: we'd get better quality journalism if journalists were subject to military discipline.

"You misattributed that quote, maggot! Drop and give me twenty!"

So these days we are in deep DooDoo.

"It is the soldier, not the reporter who gags the press, because words express ideas. It is the soldier, not the poet, who stops us from speaking because his masters tell him those words are not Art. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who obeyed his masters orders to slaughter the innocent lambs at Kent State, Tiananmen Square, Prague and a thousand other places. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who serves the masters who betray the ideals and disgrace that flag."

Irish poets definitely played a part in that ongoing struggle.

As all of us must, in our way.

It was given to us by the men who drafted the Bill of Rights and the Consitution. Not a soldier was present.

Not everything has to glorify soldiers. I'm sick of this society thinking so militaristically, and believing this mythos about elevating soldiers to some lofty status, some "agents from the heavens" bringing us enlightenment. Instead, soldiers are people who kill, maim, and destroy. Let's get that straight next time, mmkay?

but lets be sure of what we are discussing. the "soldier" in reference; is it one who actually shoots the enemy or does it include ancilliary military who also contribute to supporting the soldier who fires a weapon? if so, then anyone who supports by action such a shooting soldier contributes, even civilians.

Our military has, at times, been used to ensure our national survival. The US War for Independence, the War of 1812, the Civil War, and WWs I and II are the big examples: you could also make a case for Korea and the Cold War with the Soviet Union, though in the latter a shot was never fired. Vietnam was really an extension of French Indo China's indigenous, nationalist struggle against colonial powers, with us as stand-in for the French, who at least had the sense to admit defeat and get the hell out. But does the mere presence of a strong military guarantee anybody's civil rights? Did Stalin's army or Hitler's army "give" anyone anything, except oppression and death? Here's what "gives" us our civil rights: a constitution written by enlightenment thinkers of great foresight; an impartial judiciary system; a free press; free and fair elections; an informed and educated populace; a government which is responsive and responsible to the people; a sound military which is loyal to the Constitution and duly elected civilian commander-in-chief.

1) protect us from other people's soldiers, or
2) make it possible for "strong" nations to exploit weaker ones

I leave it up to others to decide whether American soldiers are really doing the first or the second these days.

In any case, "The Soldier" is a neutral agent. Sometimes it fights for good, sometimes not. As other people have already said, soldiers inspire or create nothing--they are instruments that do what they are told. If those in control of the soldiers happen to be people like Bush & Co., we might ALL be in trouble for what "The Soldier" will be told to do (and blindly carry out).

A world where we could be rid of "The Soldier" would be far better than what we have always had for all of our history, but so long as human nature remains what it is, human beings will continue trying to exploit each other by using "The Soldier" to do it or to stop other people's soldiers from doing it to them.

In his spew at the Repuke convention, he used this damn near word for word.

Most marines I know love to spout off this kind of fascist bullshit. That's why soliders in the other branches call them JARHEADS.

"...and if the protester CAN'T burn the flag, then the soldier's sacrifice has been in vain. Don't let it happen."

"It is the soldier, not the reporter who has given us the freedom of the press."

Actually, it is the First Amendment to the Constitution which gives us freedom of the press. The Constitution and Bill of Rights incorporate a number of the ideas of the Enlightenment. This is not a given consequence of a revolutionary war of independence. It is not the soldiers, but the wisdom of those who frame the new state that ensures these freedoms.

"It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech."

The poet ensures that freedom of speech is alive and well. The poet lives or dies by freedom of speech; where there are no writers worth reading, there is no freedom of speech.

"It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate."

Again, it was the Framers made freedom of assembly a foundation of our society. What's more, the soldier may be called upon to suppress that freedom--think Kent State.

"It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag."

If the soldier has engaged in the defense of the nation, then this statement is logical. In any case, a soldier who serves with honor deserves the highest respect, whether the cause is just or not. As for burning the flag, it's a feeble mind that can't tolerate the sight of a burning piece of fabric. While I don't care for flag-burning, I don't believe the nation will implode if we don't outlaw it.

The soldier is propped up to be more important than the poet, the organizer, etc. Since the soldier has 'given' the rights in the quote it conjurs a Stockholm Syndrome brew where the reader is urged not to ever question the soldier, as he ranks above the other humans.

some of us make more sacrifices than others. It is the collective efforts of all of us which make these things possible.

That said, it is the soldier who "salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag." It was the soldier, who, in past conflicts, like Normandy, who has helped to ensure our freedoms here at home. It will, I am certain, be the soldier who will help us to protect and ensure these in the future, with the help of all of us here at home. God bless them for their service.

edit: Iwas to Itwas

... when they see soldiers being sent into harm's way needlessly -- they're violating their duty and letting the troops down.

As an ex-Marine who's active in the peace movement pointed out to me -- there are plenty of countries in the world with lots of soldiers, but no free press or civil societies.

the guy burning the flag, and marches jackbooted through the streets to throw those labelled as "traitors" and "enemies" into the dungeons of the ruling power.

The soldier is a tool, one that can be used for good or evil.

all the time. NOT supporting the troops has never entered my mind. It just rings of fascism to me. If it weren't for our poets, reporters, dissidents and campus organizers, we might still be fighting the "commies" all over the world, who pose no threat to us. If it weren't for those people mentioned above, I might have had to go to Vietnam and died for some Cold Warrior's version of "freedom". Likewise for my older brother. If we had confined the military's mission to true freedom protecting, several thousand men and women would be enjoying that freedom today alive. Supporting the troops in a true democracy, to me, is an automatic stance one takes, since theoretically the military is governed by civilians ultimately. It is a real shame that we have to constantly parse between support for troops and utter contempt for the civlian leadership's policies.

...who oppose unnecessary, illegal, unjust wars that cause our soldiers to come home in flag-draped coffins. So piss off, Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, Sergeant, USMC!