I just re-wrote the poem: "It Is The Soldier"

[brainshrub]

IT IS THE ACTIVIST --by Brainshrub-

It was the Activist,
not the soldier, who fought for freedom of the press.

It was the Activist,
not the soldier, who fought for freedom of speech.

It was the Activist,
not the soldier, who fought for the freedom to demonstrate.

It is the Activist who sacrifices blood
for no medals, pay or health-plan;
and whose body is beaten by soldiers "following orders,"
who allows the solder to have a free country.

---

Any comments before I make this my sig line?
Is the punctuation right?

[UpsideDownFlag]

1. hoo boy. put on your flame suit.

i can see where you're coming from. activists protect from threats that come from within.

but the troops protect from the threat of outside troubles, and by doing so protect the activists as well.

[brainshrub]

3. Soldiers defend the state

not human rights.

If the size of the military was a measure of freedom, Nazi Germany and modern North Korea should be models of Democratic egalitarianism.

Soldiers don't make anyone free. It's the Activist's role that makes us free.

Go ahead and name the military unit that gave women the right to vote.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

7. Actually, the state doesn't give you rights.

They protect your rights. The soldier preserves the security of the state, and the activist makes sure there is something worth protecting.

[brainshrub]

18. Exactly.

By gum... you got it! We agree 100% The state does NOT give rights, human rights are inherent to each human being.

And how free a people is is not Dependant of the military faction. The Military = Freedom equation is a lie.

I do have to admit, upon reflection, the Military may be a component of how free we are... but certainly not the most important one. (Not by far.)

[UpsideDownFlag]

4. right, but ideally, the troops protect america's freedoms by default

by keeping it uninvaded and having the same system of government.

[brainshrub]

6. "default" is the main word here.

If America were a totalitarian state, soldiers would be defending it by default.

The point of this poem isn't to demean soldiers, but to remind people that the source of our freedoms come from the people themselves.

Freedom is something the citizenry has to fight for. It's not a gift from the military.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

10. But America isn't a totalitarian state,

and soldiers aren't mindless automatons. There is a set of values that our soldiers have. However, you are correct on one point. Soldiers do their duty to preserve the state, and the people (the citizens/government) make sure the state is worth securing. Soldiers are people too, however, and are not a separate construct. Like a said, it is the soldiers, AND the activists, AND the lawmakers, that keep us free.

[brainshrub]

15. And it never will be because of the work of Activists, not solders.

Besides, what made you think I was referring to American solders?

Lawmakers only keep us free because of the pressure of activists. After all, despots ARE lawmakers. Soldiers, if ordered to by their lawmakers, will commit all sorts of atrocities.

Obviously I'm making a blanket statement here, not ALL soldiers will behave like automatons. But enough of them did to commit the Tienanmen Square massacre and the Holocaust and the torture at Abu Grabe.

[jack99]

57. Well said JIBJAB!!

N/T
Jack

[SoDesuKa]

2. It Is the Activist

<<It is the Activist ...
who allows the solder to have a free country.>>

To say nothing of the flux.

[brainshrub]

17. The flux?

Explain. :shrug:

[SoDesuKa]

50. It Is the Solder

I quoted the original text so you'd see the typo. I should have put a picture. Flux is the material used when soldering things together.


soldering iron

[brainshrub]

51. I noticed the error to late.

To bad I didn't get it in time.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

5. With all due respect,

it is the soldier that defends the right of the activist. If we had no soldiers, the activists would not have the freedom to speak out. Soldiers spilled their blood in just wars throughout history, so that activists can protest in peace. I hear what you're saying in your poem, but it is God that gives us freedom, the people that enjoy it, and the soldiers AND activists that preserve it.

[UpsideDownFlag]

9. thank you for articulating my point better than me.

[brainshrub]

11. The military has very little to do with human rights or freedom.

The Military is a necessary resource we all share. It is not a source of freedom nor a guaranteer of human rights.

Yes, the soldier defends to state from outside interference, but that's about it. Soldiers have spilled their blood many times, and most of the time it's because their own government coveted the resources of another land... not because they were spreading freedom.

Soldiers don't make anyone free any more than having a church at the end of the block makes the neighborhood more holy.

[UpsideDownFlag]

12. if america did not have a defensive force for the past 200 years

what kind of rights do you think we'd have now? do you still think we'd be called "the united states of america"?

[brainshrub]

16. Maybe not.

Perhaps we would be called "The United Provences Of England."

But assumeing the Activists were still sacrificeing and forceing reform... we would still be free.

Freedom is not a gift of the state, it is something the people give themselves.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

21. Or rather, what is given to every person by God.

Our rights are inalienable and exist a priori to the state.

[brainshrub]

23. Self Deleted

Because I was being snarky. Sorry about that.

It is inalienable.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

25. Right.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

14. I beg to differ.

First off, I said just wars. If you're so anti-war that you don't believe any war is just, then I think you're just wrong.

Tell me, would you have the right to post on this board, free from government intrusion, if the soldiers who shed their blood in WWII had not held the line against Fascism? The soldiers didn't invent the right of free speech, but they do preserve it. It's hard to speak out, if you're dead, or under a tyrant's boot.

[brainshrub]

22. Okay, let's use WWII as an example.

Certainly, I'm thankful that American soldiers defended the American state from the German fascist state.

In 1945 we had Jim Crow, homosexuality was a crime in most states, women were still a long ways away from being considered equal in the workplace and union leaders were regularly beaten to death by thugs hired by bosses.

Even if we lost twice as many people in WWII, if it wasn't for the work of Activists we would still have those same social evils.

Again, I'm not saying that we don't need a military to defend the state; What I am saying is that freedom and human rights are not created by soldiers.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

24. Nor are they created by activists.

Activists speak out with their words and defend freedom at home, and soldiers defend freedom abroad (and at home, when neccessary). Let just say that Dr. Martin Luther King and Dwight Eisenhower were defenders of freedom. Is that fair.

[brainshrub]

30. No it isn't.

Soldiers do NOT defend freedom at home or abroad. They defend the interests of the state.

If it was in the interest of the American state to ignore the Nazis it would have, and Eisenhower would be a forgotten name. In fact, during the rise of the facism, that's exacxtly what our government did.

Look into the Spanish Civil War.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

36. But who eventually crushed the Nazis?

We sure as hell didn't beat them with protest rallies. The people changed the tide of public opinion, and the military won the victory. You see, you're really playing a chicken and egg game here. If the soldiers hadn't kept us protected, would we be around to speak out against our complacency and isolationism during the build up to WWII?

[brainshrub]

39. The Nazis had a huge military, that didn't make them free.

But I'll bet dollars-to-donuts they had poems like "It Is The Soldier" circulating. Most of those Nazi solders who fought died thought they were making the world a better place.

If the Hitler wasn't so adept at killing off the Liberal Activists, he would have never risen to power in the first place.

But Hitler was an adept despot, and the United States was just one of the industrial powers who helped finance his war machine at first. Once he posed a threat, it was up to the soldier to defend the American state and crush the military of the German fascist state.

Any civil state is a neutral force, much like rain or sunshine. We need both to survive but to much of either leads to flood or drought. In the realm of civil affairs, it is the work of activists to make sure the government behaves and permit the citizenry to exercise their rights.

The Freedoms we enjoy are not a side-effects of the military.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

44. I never said the military, by itself, makes you free.

I have asserted that both a just society (meaning people working to keep it just) AND a strong military are required.


BTW, I think the original poem was used in the context of the U.S. military, and thus the idea of the American soldier being an instrument of preserving American freedom abroad. It is based on the idea that America, despite our flaws, has always come out on the side of good in the end. I don't think this poem would work for Nazi Germany, or Saddam's Iraq, or the Soviets, etc. I think poem should've been more explicit.

[Booster]

8. Just my opinion, but if you left out "not the soldier" and

just made it a poem about activists it would be ok, but it sounds like you're pitting activitists against soldiers and, if anything, they are fighting for the same things.

[brainshrub]

13. That was the exact purpose of the original poem:

Here it is:

It is the Soldier,
not the reporter who has given us freedom of press

It is the Soldier,
not the poet who has given us freedom of speech

It is the Soldier,
not the campus organizer who gives us 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.

---

The point of this poem was to equate militarism with freedom. That equation is a boldfaced lie.

All I did was turn it on it's head to expose the obvious truth: Soldiers, in and of themselves, don't do squat for freedom of press, speech or assembly. The military is a tool of the state... and how free the people are is determined by the work of activists, not soldiering.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

19. I think you've just twisted to the other extreme.

The point is, it is the soldier and the activist the keep the nation free.

[UpsideDownFlag]

20. it doesn't equate militarism with ANYTHING. it teaches respect.

respect for the people putting themselves in harm's way for the rest of us.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

26. True enough. I think the whole problem here is that

our friend here with his "activist" poem seems to place activists higher than the military.

[brainshrub]

27. Interesting that you read it that way.

But to my eyes, this poem implies all the freedoms we have today are due to the efforts of soldiers. In reality, solders are usually called in to suppress the freedoms that Activists demanded.

I will repeat this until I'm blue in the face: Yes, we do need a military to defend the state. But the military does not determine how free we are.

[UpsideDownFlag]

29. i know you're not specifically talking about american soldiers...

but that's sure as hell the way this is gonna get interpreted. and US soldiers are NOT "usually called to repress freedoms".

period.

[brainshrub]

31. Have you heard about Ft. Benning?

Or perhaps you would like a quick lesson in Nicaraguan, Filipino or Chilean history?

The truth is that, when it is contrary to the interests of the American state, US soldiers ARE used to take part in and/or train people who do repress freedoms.

I hate to pick on American soldiers here because most governments use their militarizes for repression in one way or another. It's the nature of the beast.

That is precisely why we must never equate militarism with freedom. We should be thankful to those who put their own lives in harms way, but it is our own responsibility to keep the state honest.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

34. And neither do activists, by themselves.

Look, I don't see what this is so difficult. Soldiers protect us from threats to our freedom, and activists do so as well in a sense. We remain free to speak out, because our soldiers stand on the wall, keeping our enemies that would do us harm, out.

[brainshrub]

37. No they don't.

There would BE no freedom on this side of the wall of it wasn't for Liberal Activists.

Just because you have a brave, patriotic and disciplined army does not make you free. There was no battalion working for equal suffrage, there is no special-forces squad to ensure that freedom of the press remains a right. Those human-rights were bleed for by common civilians... not soldiers.

There is no chicken-and-egg argument here: Freedom starts and ends with the Liberal Activist.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

40. If there was no patriotic disciplined army,

those activists might not have been alive to fight for those righteous causes. If the military hadn't protected us in WWII, we'd be having this conversation in German probably. If not for the soldiers who stood up to British oppression 228 years ago, we'd have no country. How can you not see this?

[brainshrub]

42. It was the activist founders who raised the army

not the other way around.

Activists can join the army to fight for freedom. But that doesn't mean that militarys create freedom.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

47. Activists don't create freedom either.

Freedom is instrinstic in man. The natural state of man is freedom. Soldiers defend. Activists defend.

[brainshrub]

49. Yup.

Soldiers defend the state. And, if the population has enough Activists running around, the state will help defend those freedoms. If not, those soldiers are defending a dictatorship.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

53. That is why we need both.

Soldiers defend the right of activists to defend freedom at home, and the activists defend the right of soldiers not to be treated as anything less than what they are, citizens who put their lives on the line to keep us safe and free from foreign threats.

[UpsideDownFlag]

28. what came first, the chicken or the egg? that is how i view this.

same quandary. people will always view it differently, and have trouble agreeing.

[brainshrub]

32. According to the Constitution Freedom & Liberty came first.

And by the way... it was a bunch of activists who gave us that document and then organized an army to make it a reality. It wasn't the other way around.

The state is (ideally) supposed to protect our inherent freedoms with whatever tools, such as an army, it can. But the army does not make you free anymore than the army gives you eyes or ears. Of course, if you want to use those freedoms, you have to thank the Activists.

[scottcsmith]

33. The activist?

In 1992 I was stationed aboard USS Independence and we took a cruise to Sydney, Australia to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Battle of Coral Sea. The Japanese navy was set to launch a major attack against Australia in May, 1942, and it was the U.S. military, and allied forces, that engaged in battle which resulted in the Japanese fleet retreating. No activists were involved in this action; activists did not save the lives of Australian citizens.

If I'm going to attribute my freedoms to anyone, it is to my fellow veterans and the vets that served before me.

[brainshrub]

35. Read the entire thread.

Your service is appreciated & respected. The edifice that you defended was built by idealistic Liberal activists.

Patriotism and the military are necessary components to any free society, as well as any totalitarian state. The difference between the two isn't the soldiers, it's the Liberal Activists who make the country worth dieing for.

Let's take DU for example. If it was up to the conservatives, most of the posters here would be behind bars right now. Why aren't they? Because of Liberal Activists.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

38. Thank you, sir.

At least a few of us here understand. People like you, who defend our country daily, kept the country safe, so the activists could speak out.

[brainshrub]

41. In the morning, it is my habit to thank the sun for rising.

It's irrational, I know, but it makes me feel good.

The sun is a neutral force of nature, however, and unless I take measures to shelter myself I will get sunburn or over-exposure.

Soldiering is important work... but it doesn't make people free. Solders defend the forces in power; if those forces are kept in check we enjoy our human rights. If not we are cannon fodder for those same solders.

It is correct and honorable to thank soldiers for their work...it even makes us feel warm-and-fuzzy inside. But your freedoms have more to do with the ACLU and Union Organizers than a platoon of marines.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

43. Not to nitpick, but you've consistently

misspelled soldier. I'm sure that's no deliberate. Look, I can see I'm getting nowhere with you, but I'll say this one more time:

The soldier and the activist are crucial to freedom being protected. BTW, the ACLU doesn't give your human rights, it fights to preserve them (most of the time). The union rights activist doesn't give you your human rights, and for that matter, neither does the soldier.

The soldier DEFENDS. We sleep peaceably in our beds because rough men stand ready to do harm to those who would harm us. The activists, policymakers make arguments and make policy, and the army ensures the security for that purpose.

Tell me this, if Osama bin Laden declared tomorrow that he was going to launch attacks against the U.S., who would protect us? The activist? Nope. The activist defends at home from bad public policy, and the soldier defends from foreign threats. How many names of activists do you see on the WWII memorial, or the Vietnam Wall?


I really don't believe you hate the military, but you really are missing the point. IT"S NOT EITHER OR. IT'S BOTH.


P.S. I thank God creating the sun, and for allowing the sun to shine.

[brainshrub]

45. OMFG! I am such a moran!

(That's me with the bandanna.)

The spell-check never caught it! Sheesh! :blush:

Peaceful Activism can do more to end terrorism than the military could. Osama doesn't hate us because of our freedoms, he is merely the spear-point for a whole lot of dispossed people who have been hurt by poor foreign policy decisions.

If we didn't have military bases in Saudi Arabia, if didn't blindly give military aid to Israel*, if we stopped supporting oppressive regimes with our military training 9/11 might have never happened.

It is the role of the activist, now more than ever, to point out the real causes of terrorism: Injustice, poverty and oppression.

Imagine if Bush started fasting until Osama turned himself in. Would that have worked? Would that have made us safer? I don't know.

What I do know is that bombing Afghanistan & invading Iraq hasn't worked either. We are overdue to at least try the alternatives.

I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree about this topic.


---

*We can discuss that topic in the I/P room later if you'd like.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

46. And off the deep end you go....

Well, the crazy part is that you actually believe that. Osama hates us for who were are, not for what we do. The Islamofascists hate us, because we're not Islamofascists. Period. If you can't see that, then I don't know what else to say.

[brainshrub]

48. Let's go ahead and ask Osama! Don't take my word for it.

Osama, why do you hate America?

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone:

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.

Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.

All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war

Well, there you have it! He's mad b/c of the bases in SA, the Iraqi sanctions and support of Israel. He doesn't seem to say much about us being a hedonistic, freedom-loving people as much as he's upset by our meddling into Arab affairs and our blind support of Israel.* He hates us for what we've done.

BTW: The term "Islamofacist" is a word made up by conservatives who have no idea for the real causes of terrorism.


*I think we may be veering off-topic here. I don't mind... but a sure-fire way to get a thread locked to to start talking about Israel outside the I/P room. So I will tread lightly on that topic.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

52. You actually take the word of Osama?

Are you telling me you agree with him? Please tell me that's not the case. BTW, as far as Islamofascism goes, the term fits. Tell me, brainshrub, what are the real causes of terrorism?

[brainshrub]

54. Injustice

When the poor and dispossessed have no where else to turn for a redress of grievances, they resort to armed force. Every terrorist ultimately justifies it actions at the behest of an oppressed people.

I don't agree with OBLs excuses for violence... but those are the reasons he gives.

What do you think are the causes of terrorism?

[qwispichkn]

55. Yea, The ACTIVIST will protect us from this?

It's the American soldier who will protect us from this happening here(warning graphic content).

http://ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=270733

By the way, do you even know what your are talking about? Go back and read your history books.

[patrick862]

56. Don't both fight?

I'm a liberal, but I'm also a Naval officer down in Pensacola for flight training, so I would prefer to think as both the activist and the soldier as defenders of rights.

Soldiers protect our freedoms from external enemies.

Activists protect our freedoms from internal enemies.

Soldiers are sworn to protect the constitution from those who wish to destroy it.

Activists dedicate their lives to ensuring that the consitution is not perverted, nor rights stripped from those with dissenting views.

In my eyes, they're both heroes, for different reasons.