^^^^^

True that

“Where do we get such men as these? Where to we find these people willing to stand up for America?”

Mickey Z responds by asking:

“Which America was Tillman standing up for-the bosses at Halliburton or the homeless guy I see every day on the subway steps?”

The question begs an answer. Mickey Z obviously believes those fighting the war serve the likes of Halliburton, and not the true interests of the American people. I agree completely.

By your criticism, it seems you disagree. It seems you that you believe that Tillman was serving not the likes of Halliburton, but of the American people. If not, and if you agree the war serves a few elite and is contrary to the interests of most Americans, then why does the observation that the soldiers are serving that elite offend you so?

You say the thesis was that the troops deserve criticism. I read the same article and to me it says that we shouldn’t glorify the job the troops are doing there, that we shouldn’t lie to ourselves or to them just because the truth is uncomfortable. That is a pretty loud and clear message in the article, and I happen to agree with it 100%. Do you disagree? Do you believe we should glorify what the troops are doing? If not, what, exactly, is your contention with the point that was made?

Again, as I said before, I’m sure most of the troops have managed, for their own sanity, to deceive themselves into believing that they are doing “the right thing”. Perhaps many even believe this honestly. However, the article doesn’t address individual motives, or attribute any. It simply observes that the war is criminal and immoral, that those who participate in it do so willingly, and that hence it is wrong to glorify what they are doing over there. I think it’s a very honest piece. It may be hurtful for those deceiving themselves, but sometimes, as we all know, the truth hurts. We need to move beyond sentimentalism. I believe the words are true, “The truth shall set you free…”, no matter how uncomfortable it may be.

Regarding Nuremberg, again, it was in reference not to the leaders and generals, but to the common soldier that the standard of the “moral choice” was applied. That standard is relevant here. For every individual participating in the war, there is, in fact, a moral choice. I believe that is a proper and correct standard.

I really don’t understand this, though I’m trying. You say you are against the war, and I applaud your efforts to do so. Yet when an article criticizes the glorification of the war through the soldiers participating in it, you get offended. There is an inherent contradiction there that I cannot reconcile.

This is an important conversation and I hope we may continue it and find an understanding and a resolution to our disagreement.

That’s not a non sequitur, it’s a valid syllogism.

And you never answered my questions or addressed my main points.

What kind of soldiers were prosecuted at Nuremburg? The millions of everyday foot soldiers? Or the ones who had a glimpse of the big picture.

I think I have answered your questions more than one time over.

When I am not spending too much time on here I am working hard to end this war, everyday, in Iraq Veterans Against the War. http://www.ivaw.org

Again, I’m sure soldiers are able to convince themselves they’re doing the right thing, but if so, they’re deceiving themselves. Let’s be honest, here.

Once again, the article was an attack upon the glorification of war, not upon Tillman. Tillman is the object through which the war has been glorified, and it is this use of Tillman that Mickey Z criticizes. The article observed that he had willingly participated in a criminal war and criticized the culture in which his participation is glorified.

Mr. Goff and yourself, and others here, criticize the article. Hence, you are defending the glorification of war that the article criticizes.

Once again, my questions remain unanswered, so once again, I’ll repeat them:

If you agree that Tillman was heeding “a greater calling”, what was it? And if you agree with Mickey Z that the “war on terrorism” is not a war fought for higher moral principles, but is much rather fought in violation of higher moral principles, then where is your argument with him?

Those who participate in illegal and immoral wars do not reperesent “the best values” of America. The standard applied at Nuremberg was that if there was, in fact, a moral choice, then a soldier who participates in war crimes or a war of aggression is guilty, that “I was just obeying orders” is no excuse. Those who have had the courage to stand up and say, “No, I won’t fight in an unjust war” are those who represent the best values of America. Do you disagree? If not, where is your argument with Mickey Z?

Those who are party to aggression do not fight “to preserve the American dream and our way of life.” The “war on terrorism” represents extreme corruption and immorality, and US military action violates both international law and the US Constitution. Do you disagree? If not, then where is your argument?

You say I am making this conversation one about culture you agree needs changed. Only you say that as though I were changing the subject. In fact, that was the central thesis of the article you criticize. That IS what we are discussing here, since that is the point of the article. You say you agree it needs to change, and yet you criticize Mickey Z for saying just that. There’s a contradiction there I can’t reconcile.

STAN REPLIES: Quoting you — “Mr. Goff and yourself, and others here, criticize the article. Hence, you are defending the glorification of war that the article criticizes.”

This is a classic non sequitur, a logical fallacy frequently employed for polemical purposes.

The fact is that the article does not focus on Pat did this and Pat did that. The only thing Pat “did” that the article regards as important is join up to participate in a war of aggression. That is “the action Pat chose”. And that’s a factual observation.

Beyond that, it focuses entirely on the image of Pat others have built up, in which he is glorified as heeding “a greater calling”, for personifying “the best values” of America, for fighting “to preserve the American dream and our way of life.”

So I’ll repost a few observations and direct the questions I asked Mr. Goff to you:

The young men and women fighting overseas in the “war on terrorism” are not heeding “a greater calling”. This language implies a belief in God and going God’s will, or at least a belief in higher moral principles. If you agree that Tillman was heeding “a greater calling”, what was it? And if you agree with Mickey Z that the “war on terrorism” is not a war fought for higher moral principles, but is much rather fought in violation of higher moral principles, then where is your argument with him?

Those who participate in illegal and immoral wars do not reperesent “the best values” of America. The standard applied at Nuremberg was that if there was, in fact, a moral choice, then a soldier who participates in war crimes or a war of aggression is guilty, that “I was just obeying orders” is no excuse. Those who have had the courage to stand up and say, “No, I won’t fight in an unjust war” are those who represent the best values of America. Do you disagree? If not, where is your argument with Mickey Z?

Those who are party to aggression do not fight “to preserve the American dream and our way of life.” This may be an uncomfortable truth, particulary for those who have loved ones fighting in the war. But we must be honest with ourselves. The American dream and way of life are based upon higher moral principles and the rule of law. The “war on terrorism” represents extreme corruption and immorality, and US military action violates both international law and the US Constitution. Do you disagree? If not, then where is your argument?

I keep seeing references to Tillman developing an opposition to the war. I fail to see the relevancy of this observation. Similarly, I fail to see how anything “Pat thought after the life changing experience of being at war” would be relevant to the criticisms of the glorification of men who willingly participate in violence and aggression.

I’m sure many, if not most, of the men fighting this war believe they are doing “the right thing”. And I’m sure many of them know deep down in their subconscious that when they think that, they are deceiving themselves. If we’re going to appeal to authority, perhaps we should ask Mr. Goff his opinion about that.

I respect that people don’t appreciate judgment and condemnation of the troops. But I don’t understand the defense of this culture in which aggressive war is glorified through the glorification of those who participate in it.

I think people are likewise deceiving themselves if they think they can defend that culture and actively participate and contribute to it and still say, “I am opposed to the war.”

We can love the troops, and we can try to understand the position they’re in, and we can work to bring them home.

But we shouldn’t deceive them or ourselves by trying to glorify what they’re doing over there.

In the end, I believe the standard of Nuremberg is the correct one.

And certainly in this case, a moral choice was possible.