6 ms·

Joshua, I'd like to add that I know people who have had direct contact with Adm. McRaven. That's the "UT guy" you spoke of. I feel like you could do him the c

by Nrsolis 12y ago

Joshua, I'd like to add that I know people who have had direct contact with Adm. McRaven. That's the "UT guy" you spoke of. I feel like you could do him the courtesy of using his name and rank. And I'd suggest that MAYBE a person who leads highly-intelligent and committed individuals into dangerous situations where there is a significant chance that they might lose their lives knows something about "Leadership" that you might be missing. If you have a problem with the US military and their use then I'd suggest you direct that opinion to the President, your Senators, and your Congressman. I looked over your press page and didn't catch anything even remotely connected to the current wars. Nothing. Is that the "leadership" you teach? The problem isn't the military. It's the civilians that send them over to do a job they aren't willing to do. You're a part of that problem whether or not you acknowledge it. You earned a degree from an institution that participated in the development of the atomic weapon. You are currently a part of an institution (NYU) that serves as a feeder for the NSA via the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences. You're a part of the problem. How can you continue to be a part of an academic environment that refuses to acknowledge its contribution to the "corporate interests" that push us into war? Don't forget that when a nation goes to war, it represents a FAILURE of the civilians of each of those countries to reach a peaceful compromise. It's YOUR failure, not that of the military. The military by itself does not go out and start wars. The bravest soldiers I know wish for NOTHING but peace. Go ahead and ask them. The biggest doves in the whole country work at the Pentagon. Do yourself a favor and speak to a few veterans this Memorial Day. Like them, I know people who lost their lives during our more than decade-long wars. Ask them if they are regretful or angry. Ask them if they feel like they were taken advantage of. Spend some time getting to know people who wrote this country a blank check to include their own lives if necessary. They volunteered to serve. You didn't. Try and understand what motivates that kind of personal sacrifice. You might learn something. Enjoy your day off.

icebraining 12y ago
I thought soldiers had a little more self-respect than describing themselves as dumb tools used by others. No mind of their own, just following the civilians orders?
- wolf550e 12y ago
  Soldiers choose to shoot or not to shoot, and risk getting shot, getting their buddy shot, getting court martialed and/or PTSD if they choose wrong. But soldiers do not choose whether or not their country invades another country.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - icebraining 12y ago
    I'd say Ehren Watada did. If enough had done the same, who would've invaded?
  - vacri 12y ago
    They do get to choose whether to sign up to a volunteer military that's engaged in an existing war. It's very weird the way some paint US soldiers as a sort of Hero Innocent, absolving them of any sort of moral culpability.
    - mpyne 12y ago
      > They do get to choose whether to sign up to a volunteer military that's engaged in an existing war. There's been 2 very short "wars" and then 2 very long counter-insurgency campaigns. E.g. with Iraq: Even if you just flat-out assume that the U.S. invasion was completely unjustified, a soldier signing up to join could still have a positive role to play in helping the new government, and the Iraqi people, establish the basic trappings of security needed for any modern society to function. After all, the reason that the UN (and all its associated aid agencies) pulled out in 2003 was because of the security failure that led to their special rapporteur being murdered in a bombing. I mean, we've experimentally verified after the U.S. left that the mere military presence alone wasn't what was causing bombing attacks, as Iraq still has to fight through those even today. Would it have been better not to be going to Iraq in the first place? Absolutely, but the soldiers joining in 2004 didn't get to decide on the 2003 invasion, only on whether they can help on America's behalf to help the Iraqis with the damage inflicted.
speakmemory 12y ago
I think this is an extremely disrespectful and kneejerk reaction to a very thoughtful comment on the parent article. One factor that contributes to the readiness of the United States to go to war that escaped your analysis is that any critique, however mild, of the armed forces is met with furious moral indignation.
- mpyne 12y ago
  > I think this is an extremely disrespectful and kneejerk reaction to a very thoughtful comment on the parent article. I disagree, given that the comment was in keeping with the spirit of the parent comment (i.e., using the opportunity presented to hack in and tear away at the topic being presented). > that any critique, however mild, of the armed forces is met with furious moral indignation. The best possible way to "support the troops" is to not send them to war in the first place, is it not? I'll disagree with a "blame the victim" mentality everywhere I see it, and you should too. For instance, let's consider a fictional city (perhaps Gotham). Cities need firemen, even though we all hope that our stringent building codes will keep fires from starting (or at least, keep them from spreading), improved safety technology helps people put out their own fires, etc. But none of these are foolproof, and the idea of an uncontrolled fire spreading through densely-constructed buildings is so horrific that we have no choice but to maintain a cadre of firemen. OK. But eventually our building codes and safety technologies become so good that Gotham realizes that the biggest risk of a large conflagration is actually from a fire starting in the border city opposite, so Gotham signs up their firemen for "mutual assistance" and helps put fires out in their neighbors, under the catchphrase "better to fight the fire there than have to fight it at home!". The logic seems to work, despite the number of firemen who die fighting these fires each year, and our neighboring cities are doing better at stopping fires too, so we sign up for mutual assistance with cities further and further away. But larger and larger fires start to break out and worse, there are nasty and persistent rumors that those fires are actually being started by Gotham leaders, and even some of the firemen. Yet no one has completely solved the issue of fighting fires in Gotham, so the need to have some people with the training and skill to fight fires at home remains. And yet we don't like the idea of shady people doing shady things to start fires abroad. So who do you blame, the people who signed up to fight fires (possibly abroad, with good reasons), or the people starting the fires?
guiomie 12y ago
"Ask them if they feel like they were taken advantage of." ... Not sure what is your point here ? Because, there are lots of angry veterans out there who don't receive the support and help they should get.
ratsbane 12y ago
I'm sure spodek meant no disrespect to Admiral McRaven by referring to him as "the UT guy." Likewise I'm sure you didn't intend to show disrespect for Dr. Spodek by referring to him as "Joshua."
- Nrsolis 12y ago
  I actually do believe that he intended to show disrespect. And I call all of my friends by their first name EXCEPT when I speak about them in the third person or in the presence of subordinates. Since I don't believe in academic titles inasmuch as they don't confer in him any measure of respect that I am not entitled to, he's "Joshua" to me. See how that works? I'm at least acknowledging that he is an individual with a name and not that "NYU guy".

by Nrsolis 12y ago

icebraining 12y ago

I thought soldiers had a little more self-respect than describing themselves as dumb tools used by others. No mind of their own, just following the civilians orders?

wolf550e 12y ago
Soldiers choose to shoot or not to shoot, and risk getting shot, getting their buddy shot, getting court martialed and/or PTSD if they choose wrong. But soldiers do not choose whether or not their country invades another country.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- icebraining 12y ago
  I'd say Ehren Watada did. If enough had done the same, who would've invaded?
- vacri 12y ago
  They do get to choose whether to sign up to a volunteer military that's engaged in an existing war. It's very weird the way some paint US soldiers as a sort of Hero Innocent, absolving them of any sort of moral culpability.
  - mpyne 12y ago
    > They do get to choose whether to sign up to a volunteer military that's engaged in an existing war. There's been 2 very short "wars" and then 2 very long counter-insurgency campaigns. E.g. with Iraq: Even if you just flat-out assume that the U.S. invasion was completely unjustified, a soldier signing up to join could still have a positive role to play in helping the new government, and the Iraqi people, establish the basic trappings of security needed for any modern society to function. After all, the reason that the UN (and all its associated aid agencies) pulled out in 2003 was because of the security failure that led to their special rapporteur being murdered in a bombing. I mean, we've experimentally verified after the U.S. left that the mere military presence alone wasn't what was causing bombing attacks, as Iraq still has to fight through those even today. Would it have been better not to be going to Iraq in the first place? Absolutely, but the soldiers joining in 2004 didn't get to decide on the 2003 invasion, only on whether they can help on America's behalf to help the Iraqis with the damage inflicted.

speakmemory 12y ago

I think this is an extremely disrespectful and kneejerk reaction to a very thoughtful comment on the parent article. One factor that contributes to the readiness of the United States to go to war that escaped your analysis is that any critique, however mild, of the armed forces is met with furious moral indignation.

mpyne 12y ago
> I think this is an extremely disrespectful and kneejerk reaction to a very thoughtful comment on the parent article. I disagree, given that the comment was in keeping with the spirit of the parent comment (i.e., using the opportunity presented to hack in and tear away at the topic being presented). > that any critique, however mild, of the armed forces is met with furious moral indignation. The best possible way to "support the troops" is to not send them to war in the first place, is it not? I'll disagree with a "blame the victim" mentality everywhere I see it, and you should too. For instance, let's consider a fictional city (perhaps Gotham). Cities need firemen, even though we all hope that our stringent building codes will keep fires from starting (or at least, keep them from spreading), improved safety technology helps people put out their own fires, etc. But none of these are foolproof, and the idea of an uncontrolled fire spreading through densely-constructed buildings is so horrific that we have no choice but to maintain a cadre of firemen. OK. But eventually our building codes and safety technologies become so good that Gotham realizes that the biggest risk of a large conflagration is actually from a fire starting in the border city opposite, so Gotham signs up their firemen for "mutual assistance" and helps put fires out in their neighbors, under the catchphrase "better to fight the fire there than have to fight it at home!". The logic seems to work, despite the number of firemen who die fighting these fires each year, and our neighboring cities are doing better at stopping fires too, so we sign up for mutual assistance with cities further and further away. But larger and larger fires start to break out and worse, there are nasty and persistent rumors that those fires are actually being started by Gotham leaders, and even some of the firemen. Yet no one has completely solved the issue of fighting fires in Gotham, so the need to have some people with the training and skill to fight fires at home remains. And yet we don't like the idea of shady people doing shady things to start fires abroad. So who do you blame, the people who signed up to fight fires (possibly abroad, with good reasons), or the people starting the fires?

guiomie 12y ago

"Ask them if they feel like they were taken advantage of." ... Not sure what is your point here ? Because, there are lots of angry veterans out there who don't receive the support and help they should get.

ratsbane 12y ago

I'm sure spodek meant no disrespect to Admiral McRaven by referring to him as "the UT guy." Likewise I'm sure you didn't intend to show disrespect for Dr. Spodek by referring to him as "Joshua."

Nrsolis 12y ago
I actually do believe that he intended to show disrespect. And I call all of my friends by their first name EXCEPT when I speak about them in the third person or in the presence of subordinates. Since I don't believe in academic titles inasmuch as they don't confer in him any measure of respect that I am not entitled to, he's "Joshua" to me. See how that works? I'm at least acknowledging that he is an individual with a name and not that "NYU guy".