[Noisebridge-discuss] Sigh -- I'm not helping with Maker Faires this year.

[Gopiballava Flaherty]

On Apr 3, 2012, at 15:00, "bandit" <bandit at cruzio.com> wrote:

> Another critical distinction: This country seems, for the most part,
> to have learned the difference between the *political* goals of a war
> and the *military personnel* who have taken the King's Shilling to fight.
> I happen to be against what we did in Iraq and (mostly) Afghanistan.
> I think it was very unwise to start these wars, and how we fought them.

What would you say about somebody who joined the military during one of these conflicts with the knowledge that they were very likely to be deployed there?

I would argue that they have implicitly stated that they are either OK with the political goals or at a minimum don't care. I don't think that you can disclaim moral responsibility for your part in a war. You chose to assist. You didn't choose to invade, of course. I hate to use this analogy, but I think it may be apt: would you say that the 1001st person to join a rioting mob was not culpable because 1000 people were sufficient to cause destruction, and they had nothing to do with starting it? I presume not.

(I do understand that the issue is much grayer for people who were in the military before a particular war started. I'm ignoring that for now.)

> Go to any school in New Mexico.
> Lots of kids have family members on their third tour.
> You think *you* have stress?

I presume the spouses of mafia bosses in Italy who spend decades in hiding also have a lot of stress. I don't think anybody would use that as a reason to argue that they are moral.

The sacrifices you describe are only noble if the goals are moral. (Note that I am separating this from my previous comments: I am arguing that the sacrifices are not relevant in this argument. These sacrifices demonstrate the strength of convictions of the people in question, but speak nothing to the correctness of their convictions)