Role Models

Dying doesn't make you a Role Model

Published on April 24, 2004 By Muggaz In Current Events

Interesting choice of Role Models you have over there in the USA... I was reading Shadesofgreys article on Pat Tilman, and no disrespect to this particular individual - but he is no role model for dying, or joining the army... He was merely a tool in a play between great evils... It was unfortunate he had to die, but dont glorify him because he could have been playing football... It doesn't make him any different from any other soldier that dies.

Is that the kind of message you want to send to your children?? If you go to a foreign country as an invading army, and you die, but you could have been earning millions of dollars playing football - that makes you a role model?

Pat Tilman should never have died. No US soldier should have died in Afghanistan or Iraq for that matter... If Pat Tilman was directly defending his homeland, instead of corrupting someone elses - maybe we can talk about role models.

Mohammed Ali was a real hero. The man had his livelyhood stripped from him for being someone the conscientious objectors looked up to. Yes, as far as role models go - Ali wasn't the greatest (pardon the pun) he was cocky, arrogant, and sometimes just plain old rambunctious - but as he famously remarked "I aint got no quarrel with them Viet Cong" he was dragged through the mud by the powers that be. Ali had no reason to have quarrel with the Viet Cong, This wasn't a case of Ali choosing to go to war, Ali was stripped of his heavy weight title - arguably one of the most prestigious titles in world sport, just because he had a conscience.

Imagine if Ali had of died in an un-necessary war just as Tilman has - the world would have been void of one of it's greatest champions ever. Tilman obviously had something to beleive in to go and fight for his country in the middle east - now that he is dead, I wonder if his soul thinks it was worth it? I wonder if Tillmans conscience is wishing it had piped up somewhat...

I wonder how many peasant farmers defending their homeland this Tillman character had a direct involvement in killing - yeah, he may be a a soldier following orders, and orders come from the top. Doesn't make those orders right though. The Iraqi's and Afghani people who try going about their day to day lives with American soldiers watching their every move, They are role models.

I try and ask myself the same question with the shoe on the other foot - what would be happening if someone invaded the USA - would the general public who had no association with an American equivelant of the Taliban or the bath party be happy that the invading forces are there? Let me ask you Americans - try and put yourself in the shoes of these peasant arabs, would you stand around smiling and let your homeland be disrespected? I can only speak for myself - I would fight... any invading army that touched my homeland I would fight, I may hate the bath party or the Taliban, but this is my country, and America is powerful, but my blood is part of the soil.

I know this is what Tillman and the other hundreds of US soldiers that are whittling away in the Middle East thought, they thought they were defending their homeland - they weren't. Only time will tell, and i am arrogant in saying this, but in trying to make the world a safer place for our children, they have made it worse.

Bring the troops home... no more Tillmans need to die... heck.. no more John Smith's need to die either... and I would really like it of no more Abduls or Sayeed's died either... War must be a necessary evil, but dont make role models of people who willingly partake in this evil on foreign soil.

BAM!!!

Comments (Page 2)

Muggaz

on Apr 24, 2004

When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, should we have just let that go too? should we have stayed home and defended our homeland, but not taken the fight to them on their homeland?

MJ - you know what i think about that one... Licky Nic dignified it with the correct answer... I wasn't going to... sorry mate...

Dont stoop so low tho think i dont give thanks every day for the noble service men and woman of WWII - I say noble because that was noble back then... Afghanistan and Iraq are not Nobel at all... thats just my opinion. Its Anzac day today... and i am going to write another blog on it...

Just because Tilman dies for what he believes in when he could have been playing football - how does that make him a role model? I agree with the majority of people here - hopefully him dying will have an adverse affect and get your troops home... If you beleive in the War in Afghanistan, I suppose he is a role model to you then, I am just saying someone like Ali who had his livelyhood taken away because he didn't want to go to war, will always be a role model 10 times over Pat Tilman... This is an opinion piece... you can argue till the cows come home... In one year you can show me the name Pat Tilman, and i wont know who that is, but I will always know who Mohammed Ali was, and so will my children, not because of what he did in the ring, but because he wasn't allowed to enter the ring.

Vern, you are right - I dont know what his family would say - I just have pity on them because they lost a valid family member for no apparent reason in my eyes... I send my condolances to anyone in the states who loses a family member in these 'wars'... like i said.. i suppose its a necessary evil that has support.. and the war machine just keeps on moving...

BAM!!!

shadesofgrey

on Apr 24, 2004

Dont stoop so low tho think i dont give thanks every day for the noble service men and woman of WWII - I say noble because that was noble back then

I'm not sure who that was intended for--but I just want to clarify that all my points, were simply my opinions and not meant to be construed as jibes at you. I don't disagree that Ali is a role model too--for the same reason--standing for what he believed in.

I guess I'm making a distinction between role models and heroes that maybe no one else is making.

I look forward to reading your next blog on the subject.

imajinit

on Apr 24, 2004

There is no difference whatsoever between us going to Japan to finish a war that the Japanese started and us going to Afghanistan to finish a war that the Al Qaeda (sp?)/ Taliban started. We stop them now, on their turf, before they get a chance to attack us again... We simply cannot sit back and allow more attacks on American soil, and that is exactly what would happen if we "turned the other cheek" like so many of you are proposing.

Since you didn't like my last question, let me try this one Muggaz...

If terrorists blew up the building that you work in, with all of your friends and co-workers inside it, (suppose that you had the day off), what would you do? Could you sit back and do nothing? would you support your government if they didn't try to bring the terrorists to justice?

Muggaz

on Apr 24, 2004

This is where you and I are idealogically different... I dont beleive in violence to stop violence... I dont know if anyone else had said this to you, and only time will tell... but if you think because America went to Afghanistan there is not going to be any more terrorist attacks you are sorely mistaken... Its just another generation of Arab kids who will grow up with resentment towards the US, because their fathers, brothers, wives and daughters are dying - not necessarily in combat, but as inoccent bystanders as well... I know its wierd coming from a particularly proud person like myself... but sometimes to get somewhere, you have to take a few steps back, and maybe compromise... Instead of using C-130 Gunships and Daiseycutters...

I cant answer that question, because it hasn't happened to me... All i can say is that i would not support an "Afghanistanesque" operation.

Then again, Thats why i am proud to call myself Australian - our foreign policy hasn't aggreived anyone enough for them to want to fly planes into our buildings... at the end of the day, thats what my argument comes down to...

BAM!!!

Tangled Wishes

on Apr 24, 2004

Ahh, after your last reply, Muggaz, and Imajinit's last question, this is where Anne brings in HER favorite Gandhi quote:

"An eye for an eye only makes the world blind."

And I would like to say that I don't necessarily think that Pat Tillman is any more of a hero than anyone else fighting overseas.

I know this is cruel and unusual for me to say, seeing I've had TWO friends die overseas, but I don't think that, just because someone is overseas fighting a war for oil that they're automatically a hero.

Gandhi is a role model. Someone that practices non-violence. Someone that doesn't hit someone back because they hit them. Even Jesus would turn his cheek. And that's got to be important, right?

I mean, yes, Saddam and the Middle Eastern baddies surely are "bad", and they've done some terrible things. I just don't feel that as a country we are totally justified in going overseas and killing not only them but our own men. What the hell are we doing over there, anyway?

Fuck. I'm so absent minded and off right now.

I don't think that the US is justified in being in the Middle East. I don't think that we need to "stabilize" their fucking government, let them do it themselves. That's a lame-ass Bush excuse, and we shouldn't have to hear it. The troops don't want to be over there!! They aren't over there fighting for God, they're not over there protecting their family and friends! They're over there protecting Bush's oil.

They would be heroes if they were over there to protect the lives of their children. They would be heroes if they were fighting to protect their country from being taken over. They would be heroes if they were fighting for something... anything of substance.

Now, they're just wasting their lives. There's so many better things my friends could have done. They could have stayed at home, went to college, became teachers, doctors, social service workers. They could have become policemen, firefighters, scientists dedicating their lives to discovering a cure for cancer. Those kind of people are heroes.

Yes, we need people in the military to protect us.

But are the US troops overseas to protect us?

Tangled Wishes

on Apr 24, 2004

I would also like to add that in my eyes there is no credibility in comparing the "War in Iraq" to Pearl Harbor. These are two very different situations.

Vietnam is a little more realistic, but Pearl Harbor?

I just don't see it.

~Anne!

Larry Kuperman

on Apr 24, 2004

Muggaz said "Just because Tilman dies for what he believes in when he could have been playing football...."

I am not sure that the word "Just" belongs in that sentence.

What would YOU be willing to give your life for? Freedom, liberty, ideals? To defend others? Would you lay your life on the line to defend others? Strangers that you did not know? Children? People of a different faith, ethnic group?

I would say to you that the answer to that question, defines your basic moral character.

If the answer is that you would be wiling to sacrifice for an ideal, to risk your life so that others might be free, might not face the torture chamber. the bomb filled with poison gas, then you are among the Pat Tillman's of the world. If the answer is that you would only be willing to risk your life if your own country was in danger, that you would only be willing to defend that which was close to you, then I would say that you are still moral and can understand and appreciate Tillman's sacrifice. On the other hand, if you say that nothing is worth fighting for when you could be rich and safe, then I fear that you will never get it.

Mohammed Ali's name has been brought into this discussion a number of times as "real hero." I remember Ali's speeches quite well and cannot think of a more cynical man. Ali was a true racist, who said of intermarriage "'No intelligent black man or black woman in his or her right black mind wants white boys and white girls coming to their homes to marry their black sons and daughters." He favored the creation of an all-Black separitist state, disparaged the idea of universal brotherhood ("'We're not all brothers. You can say we're brothers, but we're not.") This was a man who made his livliehood through violence ("It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up.") but sought to hide behind conscientious objector status.

His basic objection to fighting in the Vietnam war was not that the war was immoral, but that he, as a member of the Nation of Islam was not about to fight "the White Man's war." This despite the fact that he was quite willing to accept the White Man's money to fight in the boxing ring. As a Black Muslim, he felt that there was no self-interest to be served by his going to Vietnam. Hardly a protest on moral grounds. In addition to the famed "no quarrel" quote, Ali added "No Vietnamese ever called me a nigger." He wouldn't go because he reserved for himself the right to decide who his enemies were and what wars to fight, a right not given to citizens of this or any other country. Ali became a millionaire in America while refusing to abide by the laws of the country that made him rich.

Ali avoided being called up in 1964 "as a result of scoring poorly on a Selective Service mental aptitude examination." (Source: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/osm/story/0,6903,1072751,00.html) When he was called up again in 1964, he refused to go.

It should also be noted that Ali was out of boxing for a relatively short time. When no one else would give him a chance, Joe Frazier helped Ali out by giving him money and shot at the title. Ali would soon publicly call Frazier an "Uncle Tom," a statement that wounded Frazier for years.

Ali and Tillman offer a study in contrasts. It was okay with Ali that others went to Vietnam, but when his turn came he avoided his responsibility. Tillman, on the other hand, went and fought for what he believed in. Your beliefs may differ, such is your right as a citizen of a democracy that others have laid down their lives to protect and defend, but Tillman's willingness to sacrifice should still be commended.

(Last note. Let me quote my remarks on trolling from the other thread since they are referenced here: "Do we need to talk abut Trolling again? Do NOT hijack threads! This can only be a community if we respect one another." I pointed to no one in particular. I addressed a behavior whereby an article that had taken one of our fellows in the community some time to write was being lost in a series on non-sensical remarks about dinosaurs, etc. Not a behavior appropriate for this community. I also noted that shortly thereafter, Muggaz replied "please delete this, and any of my comments not directly related to your thread" and I was the first to thank you for your maturity.

As you will note from my statements above, I strongly disagree with some of your points. Your right, however to hold and to express your point of view. My right to disagree with you and to try to marshall arguments to support my position.)

Peace.

imajinit

on Apr 25, 2004

but if you think because America went to Afghanistan there is not going to be any more terrorist attacks you are sorely mistaken

I know there are going to be more terrorist attacks. They are inevitable because of the extreme hatred that these people have for Americans... The idea here is that there will be fewer attacks as a result of us killing a few terrorists and disrupting their operations... the point i'm trying to make is that if we hadn't gone to afghanistan at all, there would have been more attacks on American soil since Sept. 11th. Turning the other cheek would not have helped here... these people hate everything about us, believe us to be infidels, and likely will not rest until we are all dead... I for one will not stand by and let them kill me...

but since we are apparently so evil that we've invoked this hatred in them, please enlighten me as to maybe the top 3 things that the U.S. has done to bring about this hatred...

I would also like to add that in my eyes there is no credibility in comparing the "War in Iraq" to Pearl Harbor. These are two very different situations

You're joking, right? On Dec 7th of 1941, the Japanese navy attacked us at Pearl Harbor. The first attack on American soil of any significance ever. They awoke "a sleeping giant", and 4 years later we ended the war with Japan by dropping 2 atomic bombs on them, and basically pounding them into submission. Call me all the names you want, but I will go to my grave believing that we were "the good guys", and we stomped, "the bad guys"... Since that war, the Japanese government has changed. They are no longer "evil" in the eyes of the American people, and it's very likely that they will never attack us again.

On Sept 11th, 2001, Terrorists hijacked 4 planes, and proceeded to fly two of them into the world trade center towers, and one into the Pentagon. The fourth crashed into a field in Pennsylvania because some heroes on board stood up and fought back. Shortly thereafter, we came to know where they had received their training, where they're funding came from, and where other terrorists with these kind of capabilities were hiding out. We went to Afghanistan to kill them, and to stop terrorism at it's source.

Now tell me again what the difference is?

No one from Vietnam ever attacked us on our own soil. I'm not going to debate whether that was a 'just' war or not, since it's been in the history books for 30 years...

Muggaz

on Apr 25, 2004

Thanks for your comments guys...

First of all Kupe... I really dide state that Ali wasn't the greatest role model in my original article... I dont see why you felt is necessary to slam him? I thank you for taking the time to write it though, because a lot of people who do read my blog, might not know this stuff, and yes - Ali did have a one track mind, but in this instance I admire his stance.

As far as knowing what I would die for... I dont know, I haven't been put in that position... I would ask though, did Pat Tilman really beleive that the war in Afghanistan was the right thing to do? He obviously must... I wonder if he quipped to his friends "I am gonna bag me some towel heads!" because he was so proud of his flag and country? I hope he didn't say that, but for my money, the War in Afghanistan was illegal and immoral... You are welcome to your beliefs on this war, but more people have died than i care to speculate... are their lives less valuable because they are not American? punishing a whole country for the small acts of a few is not the answer. I dont know what is the answer, and I commend the US forces for their bravery, we are on the same side, but the armed forces are just chess pieces used as tools for control.

MJ - America stood by and offered minor assistance while Europe was sufferring relentless losses for how long?? You dont have the Moral ground here... Japan was a nation state - the Government of Afghanistan did not officially declare war on USA, and whilst they had an involvement, I put it to you that it was not a direct one.

The argument that seems to be recurring here is that Tillman is a hero because he died for what he believed in - he put his life on the line... does the word suicide bomber mean anything to anyone here? I am not saying what they believe is right, but we have to ask the hard question and try to understand why they hate America and Isreal enough to kill themselves with many others? You can't sweep the past under a rug with a few bombs and thousands of troops...

BAM!!!

Larry Kuperman

on Apr 25, 2004

Thank you, Muggaz, for your well-considered reply. You have hit on a particuarly relevant point. If we respect the soldier for his idealism, how can we not respect the suicide bomber for theirs?

Here is how I distinguish between the two. Suicide bombers do NOT target military sites, but go after unarmed civilians, and now after industrial targets. Soldiers in civilized armies are under codes of conduct that forbid them from such actions.

So, German soldiers that fought in the Wehrmacht did not on trial for war crimes, but soldiers in the Waffen SS did. Many US soldiers fought honorably during Vietnam (a war that I did not support,) but the soldiers who participated in the massacre at My Lai were guilty of war crimes. The same rules should be applied to Israeli soldiers and at least on the surface, they are.

No matter how passionately one supports a cause, the "by any means necessary" approach, taken to its logical conclusion, leads to immorality.

Like many others, I have tried to "understand why they hate America and Isreal enough to kill themselves with many others?" But hatred and fanaticism aren't necessarily understandable. I sometimes feel like the parent of a child who is bullied at school, saying "But you must have done SOMETHING to provoke him!" It is easy to say that the fanatics must have good reasons, but such is not the case. Look at the attacks on civilians in Baghdad. Look at the genocide in the Sudan. Look at Rwanda. No reason, no provocation. These are not idealists, just murderers.

voodoostation

on Apr 25, 2004

That article, Muggaz, perfectly showcases the complete lack of understanding of duty. The man is a hero, not for turning down a multi-million dollar contract to play professional football (and our football is better than yours, heehee!), but for answering a higher calling. The man told friends and the media that his family had served proudly and he hadn't done a damn thing. There is nothing dishonorable about joining the military to defend your country and family. This man did what many had done before him, and apparently God told him his work was done. To leave the safety of his job, his new family for something bigger than him, or the world forthat matter, takes a great deal of courage. And the man unflinchingly accepted. The man is a hero, along with tens of thousand soldiers of every colour and background that have ever served. The man is a great role model, because he doesn't fit the modern version, not getting arrested for DUI, drugs, not killing his limo driver, not beating his wife, et al. The man believed in the country, the cause, life. That is a man to model yourself after.
Dear, Muggaz, you, in your sheltered little island life, don't seem to see the big picture. His family had a history of serving their country, and proudly. After the grief has subsided, you can bet your ass they're proud of their son and husband. Don't you question that for a moment. There are just somethings in life that outsiders can't understand, and this is one of them. This is an honourable job, being a soldier, sailor, a veteran. They fight so we can sleep at night. It's an American ideal, and you just have to be here to figure it out.
Ali wasn't a hero. You don't spend most of your youth beating people in a ring for money to be called a hero. He wasn't a hero for not going to 'Nam, he was a man whose convictions wouldn't allow him to kill. Still not a hero. A role model, yes, because he's a hell of a man. Not a hero.
Your belief that our soldiers aren't fighting for us and our country is blatant childish ignorance, my friend. As much as the world wants to paint us as aggressors, it's well known and well forgotten that we are more giving that any other country, ever. Fighting is a last reort, always, but when you fight, you fight to win. There is no room for pacifism when you deal with fanatics. Lunatics don't have a code of conduct, unlike civilized countries. There is no honour among thieves, so to speak. If you believe so, my friend, you are in for a world of hurt. And death. And torture. If you honestly believe the soldiers have been hoodwinked into serving the "Bush Regime" for illegal and immoral purposes, then you have done a great disservice to the soldiers of your country and every other country that has helped us, by relegating their service and their lives to nothing more than that of pawns, lackeys, and insulted them for beliefs that are not your own.

Muggaz

on Apr 25, 2004

Voodoo, If you are going to comment on my blog in such a partonising tone, please read the comments... I know there is a lot of writing here, but you will understand i know of a soldiers duty quite well... A soldier is never hoodwinked - it is their choice, however you have totally ignored where i am coming from, or you just haven't seen it... good on you for respecting your countries foreign policy... whatever... I just dont like it, and its a shame that soldiers have to die from it... make no mistake - Pat Tilman's life was lost because of American foreign policy... Surely you know the soldiers mentality? When the ranking officer says jump, its how high...

Kupe - you say they kill civilians for no reason - you cant see a valid reason no... Are they supposed to throw rocks at the apache gunships to have their plight understood? In an un-balanced world, this is the only way these movements can get any recognition for their cause - whether it be to get American troops out of Bagdhad, or Isrealli settlers to disband, I dont see any other weapon for thsee people? It's a catch 22 - no one will listen to the arabs because they come across as fanatics, and they come across as fanataics because no one listens to them... the only language the US understands is violence.

BAM!!!

voodoostation

on Apr 25, 2004

So, the problem with the U.S. is we only hear dead people, is that what you mean Muggaz? The Middle Eastern people don't come across as fanatics, people that write books on the proper way to beat their wives come across as fanatics. People who torture athletes because they failed to earn a medal in a competition come across as fanatics. People who strap bombs to themselves and blow up coffee shops are fanatics. Unless it's a Starbucks, too many of those for my taste. People who believe white, brown, yellow, black is the only colour are fanatics. People who blow up cars and buildings and set fire to property to preserve the environment are fanatics. People who dump red paint on fur coats while wearing leather running shoes are fanatics. People who appease killers are just dumb. We understand violence, and it is not our primary language, but we speak it fluently when it is required. It helps to be multi-lingual in this day and age.

Tangled Wishes

on Apr 25, 2004

Imajinit!!!!

The war in Iraq and Afghanistan are two very different things. I don't even feel like getting into this, just think it over a little bit (not saying you're stupid, not calling you names or anything). We fought back against Afghanistan.

Were we attacked by weapons of mass destruction, and that's why we went into Iraq? I mean, our being in Iraq and our having fought against Bin Laden are two very different situations. I still don't see the similarities between Iraq and Pearl Harbor.

~Anne

Muggaz

on Apr 25, 2004

We understand violence, and it is not our primary language, but we speak it fluently when it is required. It helps to be multi-lingual in this day and age

Thanks for saying that... It just nails my point home...

BAM!!!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!