I know there are plenty of you Democrat-leaning types that post on this forum, but from what I can tell, you're all at least moderately logical. And decent.
This isn't reflective of the base of your party, right? The majority of the left are not this hateful, right?
Right?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Tags: Support The Troops, Iraq war, snark, Recommended (all tags)
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
That story represents the left about as well as Ann Coulter represents the right.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I don't think it does, actually. Ann Coulter is pretty popular, after all. I don't think this guy's opinion on the military is nearly as popular among Democrats (percentage-wise, I guess) as Ann Coulter is among Republicans.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Hum. Stripped of the hateful rhetoric, the guy is basically saying that he doesn't like to pay taxes to support wars, and he doesn't think joining the military is a moral choice. Especially the first attitude might be fairly common among Democrats. Real, old-style pacifism is a bit rarer, I'll grant you.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Defineteley a fair bit of snark in there, but when you get down to it, I think KoM is fairly close to the mark. Stripped of the invective, he's a pacifist, and he basically thinks servicemen are mercenaries.
I think if you check most Democrats who are agaisnt the war, a lot of them don't like their tax dollars going towards the war, and many if not most would want that money pulled if given the option. Anti-servicemen language is trickier. Frankly I agree with what he's being sarcastic about, who isn't sick of the "I'm all for the troops" language you hear these days? But I don't think you'll hear that much anti-troop language from Democrats unless it's fringe elements. I think the average Democrat thinks the troops who want to be there are misguided and don't really know what is going on, and agrees with the ones who want to come home.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I'm a bit curious how serving their country, protecting their families, and seeing some excitment and adventure translates to the desire to mindlessly kill people in this guy's world. I also take exception to my friends and family being declared morally bankrupt en masse. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume this guy doesn't actually know any servicemen.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I'm a bit curious how serving their country, protecting their families, and seeing some excitement and adventure translates to the desire to mindlessly kill people in this guy's world.
I've heard told stories of abusive relationships where the guy picks and fights fights in the so-called defense of the lady, but the situation really has more to do with the guy's insecurity and want of imagination. It's not a healthy atmosphere to live in or raise kids in, and I think the relationship between the general citizenry and the military is similar. Granted, being anti-military is less popular than being soft on crime, and I can easily be considered both.
It seems to me that the entire law enforcement industry attracts rubes and mercenaries, from the military through prison guards and lawyers, I see hired guns all the way down.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Where would we be without the military?
Enough said.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: Where would we be without the military?
Just ours, or everyone's military?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: Where would we be without the military?
Enough said.
No it's not.
Just because something is necessary doesn't mean nothing should be said about it or that well-meaning, intelligent people can't disagree about the best way to implement it.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
OK. Show of hands! How many of you "I support the military" guys are/have been willing to sign on the line and actually serve your country.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:How many of you "I support the military" guys are/have been willing to sign on the line and actually serve your country.
I don't support the military, but I'd be willing to serve. I'm physically fine, but I imagine I'd get bounced quickly because I'd see the ordeal like a pap smear, sad and degrading but necessary.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: OK. Show of hands! How many of you "I support the military" guys are/have been willing to sign on the line and actually serve your country.
Total of seven years served, two honorable discharges (I went back for a second round after being out for six months), a few medals, and I cussed out a full bird Colonel (funny story).
Supporting policy is different than supporting the troops. Many are working class, blue collar kids who don't have many other options. That was the case for me. When I joined they didn't promise "money for college". That would have been nice to have something other than the GI Bill.
You can disagree with the war. You can hate the people who are sending them over. But don't hate the troops. They are doing a job that, unless you are wearing a uniform right now, you are not willing to do.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: Where would we be without the military?
Enough said.
No it's not.
Just because something is necessary doesn't mean nothing should be said about it or that well-meaning, intelligent people can't disagree about the best way to implement it.
Absolutely we can discuss it. You can not support the troops. You can hate them. You can protest at their funerals when they come home in a box. That is what is wonderful about this country. That freedom is what these troops and countless in the past have fought and died for.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Dude, troops are currently not getting the sort of medical care they need and some how it's the DEMOCRATS who ate the military?
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: Where would we be without the military?
Just ours, or everyone's military?
They have the right to protect their borders and interests just like we do. The Garden of Eden is gone. There are wars. That will never end. Maybe when the buggers invade we can get past our little skirmishes here on Earth. Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Support of the military is not a partisan political issue. The redest state on the map (UT) has the lowest service (read support) participation rate in the Nation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Absolutely we can discuss it. You can not support the troops. You can hate them. You can protest at their funerals when they come home in a box. That is what is wonderful about this country. That freedom is what these troops and countless in the past have fought and died for.
It's your equation of "discuss it" with "not supporting the troops" as well as funeral protesting (most of which is done by ultra-conservatives, by the way) that I find disturbing.
"Where would we be without the military?", even if true, is not "enough said."
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Dude, troops are currently not getting the sort of medical care they need and some how it's the DEMOCRATS who ate the military?
The VA service has never been enough. You are just hearing about it now. They didn't all the sudden go to crap over the last seven years. This is not a Republican or Democrat issue. It is an issue that we all must deal with.
I am reminded of the story of Carlos Hathcock. He was a Marine Sniper in Vietnam. He has the record for most confirmed kills and saved hundreds of US soldiers lives by taking out the enemy. He was seriously injured when his vehicle ran over a mine. With all his service and gallantry, he was discharged just shy of his 20 year mark. This meant, he did not get full pension. That did not happen in the last seven years. That is not the Democrats fault. It is not the Republicans fault. Sometimes it just happens. There are a lot of injustices in the world.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Absolutely we can discuss it. You can not support the troops. You can hate them. You can protest at their funerals when they come home in a box. That is what is wonderful about this country. That freedom is what these troops and countless in the past have fought and died for.
It's your equation of "discuss it" with "not supporting the troops" as well as funeral protesting (most of which is done by ultra-conservatives, by the way) that I find disturbing.
"Where would we be without the military?", even if true, is not "enough said."
Maybe I should have put it in a different paragraph (I never made good grades in English). I have not, nor will I, resort to personal attacks on this or other threads. We can discuss it. That is what I like so much about this forum. We can get into a heated discussion here and laugh together on the begging a question thread.
I knew I would start a poopie-storm when I posted my comment. That was part of the reason I did. Please don't take my error in grammar as a personal attack.
To me, this issue is not Republican vs. Democrat. It is For the Military and Not For the Military. As for me and my house, we support the troops 100%. Just like firefighters and police, they sign up to do a job. Sometimes that job takes them into places that they do not want to be. It doesn't matter, that is their job and they do it. Thank God for that.
Where would we be without the military? Under British rule with Taxation without Representation. Maybe.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I know there are some things we must do in order to continue discussion, but it's truly disingenuous to refer to "the military" as if it's a homogenous group that all joined for the same reasons and have the same set of values and beliefs.
People join the military for all sorts of reasons, some admirable, some not. Some because they have no other options, others for the money for college, others because they want adventure and travel, others because it's what their family expects, others because deep down they do want to shoot guns and kill people and blow things up and this is the best way to get to do that.
So yes, there will be mercenary types in there but there are also people like my Dad who truly love their countries and want to serve it, and have passed over other opportunities in the private sector that would have paid a heckuva lot more in order to stay and serve.
And as for my "credentials" as it were, I have never personally served, but my Dad does, my husband was in the reserves, my brother in law a Marine, my Grandfather served in WWII, and I can name countless other cousins and uncles. In my family the men serve overseas, and the women serve at home. And I mean serve - when you're married to a military man your name might not be on the enlistment papers, but you are still serving your country.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Great post Belle.
Posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix (Member # 10094) on :
Most people who object to a military and call soldiers violent and mindless killers. They talk of a world that a military is not needed, and how it is a barbaric through back. I can understand this being a former soldier myself. I agree that war is barbaric, and there is no glory in it. The glory comes from those that know how horrible and meaningless most wars are, but they still sign up to serve.
What ever reason a man or woman signs that paper, they have at least a small understanding of the risk they are taking. They understand that they lose their lives to defend policies they may not agree with. They understand they might not agree 100% with existing government, but they can still die on their word.
It is on the backs of these men and women that people who live in a fantasy world, can protest by burning the flag, speak their mind in public, or spit on the same uniform that gives them the right to do it.
No body hates war more then a soldier. I never looked forward to doing my job under any means, but I knew it had to be done and I was willing to do it, so that hopefully one day my daughter, or my future grand children, might not have to. I did this to insure that my children, and my children's children had the choice to do those silly things like flag burning, or spitting on soldiers.
I joined the military to protect each persons right to argue with me. I have been to other countries were this is not possible and it is not better then the US. I have been to countries controlled by religious ideas, and I understand why our founding fathers (many of them very spiritual) understood the need for separation of church and state.
I have taken human life, I have saved human life, and while I would love nothing more then to leave that in the hands of God, in this world we live it is not a reality we can avoid. Many people out there do not see us Americans as human, and while they are right some times, it does not give them the right to force their ideas on us. In those cases we need a military to protect ourselves, and to prevent unnecessary loss of life.
Violence brings more violence, I understand that. But if we only use as much force as required, or get so good at it, those that use violence as their tool are less likely to want to fight. Persons like that are usually bullies and cowards, and only attack people that they feel can not hurt them. They fear that pain, and because of that people here in the US can voice their opinions of how the world SHOULD be, and live that fantasy. But until every one understands basic human rights, and respects the opinions of others, we will always need a military force of some capacity.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:I know there are plenty of you Democrat-leaning types that post on this forum, but from what I can tell, you're all at least moderately logical. And decent.
I'm surprised no one commented on what was blatantly a rip at democrats, insinuating that most democrats are NOT logical OR decent.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Another great post. Thanks for your service HUF. Belle, thank you for yours also.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I let it pass Strider, because I didn't think it worth commenting on. That's also why I originally ignored this:
quote:I think the average Democrat thinks the troops who want to be there are misguided and don't really know what is going on, and agrees with the ones who want to come home.
As a family member of more than one serviceperson, I find it insulting to presume that troops are misguided and too stupid to know what's going on, and that only those that want to go home should be agreed with.
But now, what has been served by me pointing this out? Do you think anyone is really going to change their opinions? Probably not, it's just going to fuel debate.
Then again, this is a discussion board and that's what we're here for. Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I'd just like to point out that "insulting" doesn't equal "false".
Some insulting things are true, and some insulting things may need to be said. (Then again, some other insulting things are just insulting, and nothing more than that.)
Incidently, I don't think soldiers are misguided for joining the military if they feel called to do that. However, I do think the country is miguided in using them as we use them.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: Incidently, I don't think soldiers are misguided for joining the military if they feel called to do that. However, I do think the country is miguided in using them as we use them.
That is the point I was trying to make. You can discuss all day long about why we are there, if we should be there, is it illegal for us to be there, etc. But the troops are going where they are told and are doing what they are told. We don't know the circumstances around their enlistment. We should support the individual soldier.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: Support of the military is not a partisan political issue. The redest state on the map (UT) has the lowest service (read support) participation rate in the Nation.
I've been trying to find out how you know this, would it be possible for you to link whatever study you know of that states this?
edit: Have you considered the fact that a large chunk of the young men in Utah between the ages of 19-25 go serve as missionaries for two years and hence feel an urgency to go to college afterwards rather then give up another 4 years to the military?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: "Where would we be without the military?", even if true, is not "enough said."
It's a nitpick, but I'm going to have to point out that a question cannot be true or false. Only answers to questions can be true or false.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
It's not the exact statistic AT quoted, but here's the percent of residents in each state who are veterans, 2003 data.
Utah's not the lowest. It's the third to lowest. (Counting the District of Columbia, at second to lowest.)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: edit: Have you considered the fact that a large chunk of the young men in Utah between the ages of 19-25 go serve as missionaries for two years and hence feel an urgency to go to college afterwards rather then give up another 4 years to the military?
What does that have to do with the subject under discussion? The point was that the Utahns feel (presuming here that the quoted statistic is accurate) that they have better things to do than join the military. The nature of these better things is utterly irrelevant.
Posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix (Member # 10094) on :
The trouble with that report doesn't account for point of origin. Being "retired" and honorably discharged form the military, I did not return home. I have seen a large amount of the world and the country and really did not want to go "home" after I got out. A more effective example would be to see enlistment percentages based on states.
The only reason I would question this report is that Texas is 44th, and it seemed like when I was in, you couldn't talk to a person with out finding a Texan near by. It seemed to me it was as high as 1 in 5 were Texas transplants.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: edit: Have you considered the fact that a large chunk of the young men in Utah between the ages of 19-25 go serve as missionaries for two years and hence feel an urgency to go to college afterwards rather then give up another 4 years to the military?
What does that have to do with the subject under discussion? The point was that the Utahn's feel (presuming here that the quoted statistic is accurate) that they have better things to do than join the military. The nature of these better things is utterly irrelevant.
No it isn't. Artemisia said that party allegiance has nothing to do with supporting the troops and cited Utah as an example. Mormon males in Utah have an extremely strong doctrine of service as missionaries at the age of 19 ingrained in their heads. If they do not serve by the age of 25 they are then disqualified from serving as missionaries until they are much older. Marriage and acceptance in society are irrevocably altered by failure to comply if able. Enlistment in the military is by no means compulsory and so one takes precedent over the other. If the church had never traditionally made this demand of young men I would be very confident that enlistment rates in Utah would be average if not above average.
As it is, the difference between Utah and Alaska (who as of 2003 was #1) was a noticeable 7% difference. The margin of error for both states was around 1.5%. 7% though significant, is not THAT much of a difference.
I just don't think Utah is an accurate example of party policy influencing loyalty to the troops. It would be like looking at Pennsylvania in 1776 ignoring the Quaker influence, and instead looking at which political party folks sympathized with and using that to gauge support of our troops then.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BlackBlade, I'm sure people in Utah have very good reasons for not joining the military. People in other states have very good reasons, too.
I spend a lot of time with people in the peace movement. I have yet to meet one that was against the troops or who blamed the people serving. As a matter of fact, I met lots of peace activists who were or had been in the military. I had a great conversation with a marine in full dress and a WWII vet in his wheelchair during a march in D.C> - I wish I could post the picture here.
The "miltary industrial complex", on the other hand, does make a lot of money for people. Often these people have a lot of influence on when and why we send our troops to war. So being "anti-military" makes a certain amount of sense for people interested in promoting peace.
Anti-military is not the same thing as anti-soldier.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: OK. Show of hands! How many of you "I support the military" guys are/have been willing to sign on the line and actually serve your country.
I'm not willing to join the military, but I have served my country. Does that count? I have also served impoverished human beings outside of my country through missionary work. How about that?
I support the individuals in our military. I treat them with respect and gratitude whenever I see them. I am not horribly opposed to the war in Iraq, but I am opposed to the premises under which the war was started, and to the erosion I perceive in our civil liberties caused by the War on Terror. I think Saddam Hussein was a bad guy and everyone is better off with him gone, and I think that pulling out at this stage in the game would be detrimental. But I think there are lots of other bad guys in power, and I'm not sure why Saddam got to the top of that list*--actually, I do: because Dubya wanted to finish what his father started, and take out the guys whose position in power was an embarrassment to Dad. I think we were manipulated in order to bring about this war, and I think preemptive warfare is a terrible precedent and an awful legacy for this administration. I believe this occupation has not been carried out competently. I also believe there were far better targets if we had any interest at all in punishing those countries that harbor terrorists. This administration's actions have made it plain that going after terrorists is an excuse, not a goal.
I've been labeled a liberal here for criticizing this president. And yet I oppose abortion, oppose gun control, favor vouchers, favor the death penalty, favor smaller government, and voted for George H. W. Bush. I also voted for Jeb! the first time he ran in Florida, God forgive me. I came close to attending the U.S. Naval Academy--had the congressional recommendation lined up and assurance that admission would be no problem--before I decided that I really didn't want a military life.
Kerry is the first democratic presidential candidate I ever voted for. I don't think I've become more liberal; I think the republican party has moved away from me.
So what of it, Artemisia Tridentata? You clearly threw that out there to make a point. You wanna make something of it?
*Hell, if we wanted to get rid of bad guys, we should have taken out the Castro brothers. I can assure you that there would have been no insurgency in Cuba. And, like Saddam, that's another situation the US helped cause.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: Where would we be without the military? Under British rule with Taxation without Representation. Maybe.
That seems dubious, not only as a proof of whether we should be forced to support the military with our tax dollars, but as an interpretation of historical events.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: OK. Show of hands! How many of you "I support the military" guys are/have been willing to sign on the line and actually serve your country.
I support the military. I'm willing to serve; that does not, however, mean I intend to volunteer.
Posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix (Member # 10094) on :
Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: OK. Show of hands! How many of you "I support the military" guys are/have been willing to sign on the line and actually serve your country.
I am not only willing to serve, I did. I served 6 years and was medically discharged under honorable conditions for injuries received in the line of duty.
With that in mind, I also do not agree with the reasons we went to war in Iraq. I do agree we are losing certain rights under the guise of the war on terror. I support our troops, I support a free and stable Iraq. I believe because of the service I put into the country it is my duty to speak these things so the sacrifice our service members and myself put forward is not in vain.
I think it is the duty of all Americans to speak their mind. Even if they fear people will not agree with them, but their voice must be heard. I am not a blind patriot, but I do love my country and I would not want live any where else.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: OK. Show of hands! How many of you "I support the military" guys are/have been willing to sign on the line and actually serve your country.
I'm assuming 'serve your country' = 'join the military'.
In that case, no. Primarily because I don't want to shoot at people or be shot at. (Just to be clear, I'm objecting to the killing, not necessarily the guns.)
That's not ALL that the military is, but it is a part that I don't want to be involved in.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: OK. Show of hands! How many of you "I support the military" guys are/have been willing to sign on the line and actually serve your country.
I'm assuming 'serve your country' = 'join the military'.
In that case, no. Primarily because I don't want to shoot at people or be shot at. (Just to be clear, I'm objecting to the killing, not necessarily the guns.)
That's not ALL that the military is, but it is a part that I don't want to be involved in.
You can serve as I did. As a medic. Under the Geneva Convention, a medic is a non-combatant. They carry a sidearm for patient protection, not as an offensive weapon. There are plenty of non-combatant positions in the military.
Edit: As for the not being shot at part. That can happen anywhere, though more likely to happen in the military.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: OK. Show of hands! How many of you "I support the military" guys are/have been willing to sign on the line and actually serve your country.
I'm assuming 'serve your country' = 'join the military'.
In that case, no. Primarily because I don't want to shoot at people or be shot at. (Just to be clear, I'm objecting to the killing, not necessarily the guns.)
That's not ALL that the military is, but it is a part that I don't want to be involved in.
You can serve as I did. As a medic. Under the Geneva Convention, a medic is a non-combatant. They carry a sidearm for patient protection, not as an offensive weapon. There are plenty of non-combatant positions in the military.
Edit: As for the not being shot at part. That can happen anywhere, though more likely to happen in the military.
Agreed. But I'm fat and slow, so I'm afraid I make far too good a target.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: Where would we be without the military? Under British rule with Taxation without Representation. Maybe.
That seems dubious, not only as a proof of whether we should be forced to support the military with our tax dollars, but as an interpretation of historical events.
What country in history has been able to survive without a military?
If I don't have kids in school, why should I have to pay taxes for schools? If I do not need food stamps, why should I pay taxes for those that do? If I am not going into space, why should I pay taxes for NASA?
Not really a good argument for me. I don't feel we are forced to pay for the military. It just seems part of living in this country.
If that is my interpretation of history, what would have happened? Would Britain have just said, go and be your own country?
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by brojack17:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: OK. Show of hands! How many of you "I support the military" guys are/have been willing to sign on the line and actually serve your country.
I'm assuming 'serve your country' = 'join the military'.
In that case, no. Primarily because I don't want to shoot at people or be shot at. (Just to be clear, I'm objecting to the killing, not necessarily the guns.)
That's not ALL that the military is, but it is a part that I don't want to be involved in.
You can serve as I did. As a medic. Under the Geneva Convention, a medic is a non-combatant. They carry a sidearm for patient protection, not as an offensive weapon. There are plenty of non-combatant positions in the military.
Edit: As for the not being shot at part. That can happen anywhere, though more likely to happen in the military.
Agreed. But I'm fat and slow, so I'm afraid I make far too good a target.
I just wanted to make sure people did know there are other options out there. I love to shoot but don't even hunt because it doesn't apeal to me. I did really want to serve though. Being a medic was great. One of the best experiences in my life. Without it, I may have lost one of my children. Learning CPR in the Army let me save my daughter when she nearly drowned at four.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: What country in history has been able to survive without a military?
Lots of countries survive with considerably less of a military than we have. Whether we could is something I don't think we consider as thoughtfully as we might.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:If the church had never traditionally made this demand of young men I would be very confident that enlistment rates in Utah would be average if not above average.
"If I didn't have to do X, I would join up."
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: OK. Show of hands! How many of you "I support the military" guys are/have been willing to sign on the line and actually serve your country.
I did.
And I am not a Republican, nor do I support this war. Belle was completely right....some of the biggest assholes AND some of the best people I ever met (to paraphrase ) were in the service with me.
You can disagree with a specific mission and still support the military, or at least the soldiers in the service.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
1. Yes I know about Mormon Missionaries. However, as a returned missionary, and a Viet Nam era veteran, (Who did not support the rational behind the Viet Nam war and still think we were fighting on the wrong side.) and a 30 year Army National Guard NCO (retired) I am personally offended by the Pro-War attitude of many (most) of the Republicans in UT. IMO they do not serve because they are too selfish to put their time where their mouth is 2. Utah is the lowest in enlistments. The reason that it is third from lowest in veterans, is the large number of WWII vets still living. 3. "The Military" takes no position on any war. They are subject to civilian control by law and by practice. That is not just eyewash. It really works. Not even McArthur could do anything else. 4. Fat and slow dosen't cut it as an excuse eather. I had to study for my weight test every time I took it.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:4. Fat and slow dosen't cut it as an excuse eather. I had to study for my weight test every time I took it.
Um...ok. I'm still not joining, heh.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: 2. Utah is the lowest in enlistments.
I believe you've been asked where you got this stat from. Would you mind sharing?
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
I have no problem with persons with physical limitations or sincere conscientious objectors. I do have a problem with young healthy guys who pontificate about staying the course and winning the war on terror, while they enrich themselves (or prepare to do so.) with no feeling of guilt for avoiding military service.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: I have no problem with persons with physical limitations or sincere conscientious objectors. I do have a problem with young healthy guys who pontificate about staying the course and winning the war on terror, while they enrich themselves (or prepare to do so.) with no feeling of guilt for avoiding military service.
Then we have no argument. Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Ah. Okay. In that case, I totally misinterpreted where you were coming from. I thought your point was to say that people who claim to support the troops but oppose the war were disingenuous and cowardly. Looking back now, I don't see how I could possibly have gotten that from what you said.
Sorry for any bristliness in my tone.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
brojack17: Essentially, thats what happened with Canada, a slow gradual achievement of independence starting in 1867 ending symbolically (perhaps) in 1982, all largely by diplomatic means.
Now, I'm not saying that its the best way, but would British control of the United States would really have lasted not only to 1982, but to 2007? Is there any reason why Britain would conceed control of Canada but hold onto the US? Would its hold really been able to survive WWI, WWII, or the Civil War? I just find that incredibly unlikely. Perhaps there might even have been an American equivalent of a Gandhi, but that is pure speculation. What I do know is that not only is your scenario dubious, but the fact that you're linking support for the military in a defensive war of independence to support of a foreign war of preemptive action and occupation. This I find unconvincing.
The second issue, the ironic thing is that you bring up the concept of taxation without representation. This exactly what an essay at OSC's other site is addressing http://www.ornery.org/essays/2007-03-15-1.html
The essay addresses most of what you're commenting on. I don't actually agree with the essay for different reasons. However, it would address the original blogger's wish and I would also add that the only way that the US would be stripped of its military would be if *everyone* opted not to direct funds towards it. This I also find unlikely.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Forgive my lack of understanding in tax law, but isn't it illegal to opt out of any or all of your taxes? Or is your point that if "everyone" opted out, the government would have to accept general consensus?
[obvious dig on Canada] Yeah, but who would want to end up like Canada [\obvious dig on Canada]
My whole issue with the guy referenced in the original post is this: you can hate the war, you can hate the people who sent us to war, you can think that the military is a bunch of death hungry Joe's running around with human ear necklaces, but at the end of the day, these people are willing to die for your safety. In this war or others, they are willing to give their life for you. They deserve a little respect.
Edit: Do you really think Americans (even colonial ones) would wait 115 years for independence. No, that is why it went down the way it did.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I think our society should do its best to support those who choose to serve in some capacity, whether in the military, as a law enforcement officer, or as a public school teacher. However, I don't think "support" necessarily means doing that particular job. It means that we as a society ensure that people receive good pay and benefits. It means that we acknowledge that what they're doing is a public service. It means that we do what we can to help them do their jobs safely and effectively, whether that's proper training and equipment, choosing our wars wisely, or providing adequate funding. I have spent some time and money supporting the public education system. I believe that it's a vital public service. Am I hypocritical because I say I support the teachers but don't want to teach?
On the other hand, it's a lot easier to quit most public service jobs than it is to quit the military. Additionally, the military does have some risks and downsides that other jobs do not. So I suppose it's a little unfair to ask service members to do things we wouldn't do because they don't have the opportunity to say no.
At any rate, I'd fail the physical, so "supporting the troops" by joining is not an option for me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I let it pass Strider, because I didn't think it worth commenting on. That's also why I originally ignored this:
quote:I think the average Democrat thinks the troops who want to be there are misguided and don't really know what is going on, and agrees with the ones who want to come home.
As a family member of more than one serviceperson, I find it insulting to presume that troops are misguided and too stupid to know what's going on, and that only those that want to go home should be agreed with.
But now, what has been served by me pointing this out? Do you think anyone is really going to change their opinions? Probably not, it's just going to fuel debate.
Then again, this is a discussion board and that's what we're here for.
Well, when you present my views that way, no I don't expect anything meaningful to come out of this discussion. You just equated not knowing something with being stupid, and since I'm sure there are things you don't know, I guess you're stupid too, and so am I, and so is everyone on this board.
And I don't get what you mean by singling out this:
quote:and that only those that want to go home should be agreed with.
Well...that's how agreeing with someone works. If you want them to come home, and they want to come home, then you agree with them. If they don't want to come home, then there's a disagreement. That's like saying it's not fair that I only disagree with people I disagree with. Just because I agree with those who want to come home doesn't mean I ignore those who don't.
A lot of Democrats think the war is more damaging to us than it is helpful, and we think that going to fight over there so we don't have to fight them here is beyond ridiculous as an argument. So I'll state my own opinion. I think the ones that sign up all gung ho to defend the US of A are misguided by fighting in Iraq, because the fight they are getting into isn't making us safer, it's making it more dangerous for us. And I think that many of them might not fully understand the situation if they think charging in with guns blazing is going to solve the problem, if that is indeed what they think. I certainly don’t fault their enthusiasm or their willingness to sacrifice for what they believe in, but I question whether or not they are going about it the right way, and to do so would question how much they know about the larger situation, or their skills at analysis, and I’m sorry, but I think that’s a valid question. Unless Belle, you’re one of those people who thinks that asking questions like that is unpatriotic?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Am I hypocritical because I say I support the teachers but don't want to teach?
If that doesn't qualify you as a hypocrite, I'm sure we can drudge up something else that would.
But seriously -- that's an excellent point.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Nobody hates war more then a soldier.
I don't think that's true.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:Am I hypocritical because I say I support the teachers but don't want to teach?
No it's not the same at all. There is an obligation, at least for males residing in the United States, of military service. That obligation (I believe it is still eight years) can be discharged by active service or by time of active service plus time in the active or inactive reserve. Or it can be ignored. At the present time, you will not be compelled (Conscription) to discharge that oblication. But, it's still there, even though most men chose to ignore it. There is no obligation to teach school.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
That is an entirely new interpretation of the registration requirement to me. Can you back it up?
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:I think the ones that sign up all gung ho to defend the US of A are misguided by fighting in Iraq, because the fight they are getting into isn't making us safer, it's making it more dangerous for us. And I think that many of them might not fully understand the situation if they think charging in with guns blazing is going to solve the problem, if that is indeed what they think
Let me say again, the US military is totally under civilian control. No soldier or sailer would, in their capacity as a member of the US military "think that charging in with guns" is going to solve any problem. That "think" (decision) is made by the duly elected civilian government. People join the military for lots of reasons. But, I still think that one reason that is fairly common with all, is the feeling that they should serve their country.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Unless Belle, you’re one of those people who thinks that asking questions like that is unpatriotic?
I've never said that and never would. My objection is to your characterization of the troops as misguided, which I assumed to mean misinformed or perhaps not intelligent enough to understand what is happening. That is a prejudice about our armed forces that I've encountered before, and I guess I thought I saw it rearing its ugly head here too.
Because I can tell you, well-educated, well-informed, and intelligent people do serve in our military and many of them do believe we should stay the course in Iraq. You may not agree with them, but that doesn't mean they aren't informed or intelligent. They just took in the information and came to a different conclusion than you did.
I guess the issue is with "misguided" which to me conveys a sense of gullibility and an ability to be duped by false information. Which in turn suggests a sense of someone who lacks intelligence or the ability to be discriminating and exercise sound judgment. That characterization is what I was objecting to. If that's not how you intended that word to be interpreted, then I withdraw my objection to your phrasing.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
But Belle, isn't it natural to believe that you are right, and that therefore, those who disagree with you are mistaken? I read Lyrhawn's post not as an insult of those who disagreed with him, but simply as an acknowledgment that he sees those who disagree as being mistaken. As such, it didn't strike me as offensive to pro-Iraq-war people, but simply as self-evident. I thought Lyrhawn's point was to give an alternative to the offensive "soldiers are evil brutes" line.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:If the church had never traditionally made this demand of young men I would be very confident that enlistment rates in Utah would be average if not above average.
"If I didn't have to do X, I would join up."
Does Norway have a similar cultural querk? Can you even name a state that has something identical to a Mormon missionary?
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:That is an entirely new interpretation of the registration requirement to me. Can you back it up?
It comes out of the "Military Selective Service Act". Look at Title 50, Section 454.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Being liable for induction creates no legal obligation to serve, ignorable or not. Nothing in the act creates a legal obligation to serve, and construing the act as creating a moral obligation to serve is tenuous in the extreme. If an obligation to serve exists, it exists regardless of the presence of the act.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
This? This seems to create an obligation to register, in case a draft is ever needed. I don't read it as establishing an obligation to actually serve. I only skimmed it, though. Can you point me to language implying that the obligation is actually to serve, and not merely to register? I'm not aware of having ignored any obligation. I don't like the implication of that phrasing, and I'm not inclined to accept it unless you can back it up pretty conclusively.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata:
quote:That is an entirely new interpretation of the registration requirement to me. Can you back it up?
It comes out of the "Military Selective Service Act". Look at Title 50, Section 454.
We are all required to register for a draft, but we are NOT under ANY obligation to enlist. That is one of the things I enlisted for fight FOR, the right to decline serving.
I don't think that those who don't enlist are less American than those who do, nor do I think that serving is right for everyone.
We do not have any service obligation in the USA, except under extreme conditions.
Thank God.
[ July 24, 2007, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
You are reading it right. If there is a need to compel then they will compel, using the described method, sufficent persons to fill the need. Those persons who are compelled will have an eight year legal obligation. Only those persons who are conscripted have the legal obligation. The obligation for the others is only a moral one and can be ignored. As long as the government chooses to run with an "all volunteer force" ignore the obligation. Feel free to vote to send "those other guys" anywhere you want. I will not respect you.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
There is no obligation to ignore, so feel free to not respect me.
I will reciprocate.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
I think that it seems like the ways that some people oppose the war (which is fine IMO) or the military in general (more on the edge between fine and not-fine IMO) tend to affect the ordinary member of the military. (Not fine IMO)
For example, at my law school, there is some vocal opposition to allowing recruiter visits on campus, not to mention publicizing such visits. (And we have a reputation as a relatively conservative law school!) Well, who does that affect? Does it affect the military as a whole? I suppose so, if only a tiny bit. And does it oppose the war? I suppose so, if only as a token effort. But who gets affected the most, when recruiters are a three hour drive away instead of coming to campus? That would be the individuals who serve in the military.
So sometimes it's hard to tell, from the POV of a member of the military, if they are hypocrites when they allege that they support the military (or the military as individuals), or if they are unaware that their acts impact members of the military as individuals far more than any other effect.
FYI, I put my money where my mouth is, with ten years in the Marine Reserves.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: The obligation for the others is only a moral one and can be ignored.
Says who? Says you? Again, find me proof that there is such a moral obligation.
quote:As long as the government chooses to run with an "all volunteer force" ignore the obligation. Feel free to vote to send "those other guys" anywhere you want. I will not respect you.
It sounds like you are saying that you do not respect anybody who does not serve--or at least, any able-bodied man who does not serve. Is that interpretation of your words correct? If so, then screw you; you're not worth conversing with.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
I don't understand the theory that everyone has an moral obligation to serve in the military. There are plenty of ways to serve your country, your community, that have nothing to do with the military. Or even government service.
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: Where would we be without the military? Under British rule with Taxation without Representation. Maybe.
If you want to talk about Taxation Without Representation, don't forget DC. We pay taxes, serve in the military, serve in public office, and (most relevantly) are American citzens, but we don't get a vote in Congress. On top of that, Congress has 'absolute legislative authority' over DC. We do get to vote for President, but 3 electoral votes don't compare to 3 (or even 1) congressmen. Five of of my shipmates from boot camp aren't even allowed to vote for President - they're from Puerto Rico. (They don't pay federal taxes, but the rest still applies.)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:If the church had never traditionally made this demand of young men I would be very confident that enlistment rates in Utah would be average if not above average.
"If I didn't have to do X, I would join up."
Does Norway have a similar cultural quirk? Can you even name a state that has something identical to a Mormon missionary?
Eh? You asserted that being a missionary is more important than joining the military. Others assert that going to college is more important than joining the military. I am saying that there is no moral difference between the two, and the particular situation of becoming a missionary therefore has no bearing on whether Utahns should, or should not, bear their proportional share of the military burden. (Noting for clarity that I have yet to see the statistic that started this argument backed up anywhere.) Presumably, if California had no colleges or jobs, recruitment rates there would rise drastically.
Norway has conscription, and also no regime-changing ambitions and no power-projection capability anyway, making it a bit difficult to compare the situations.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: FYI, I put my money where my mouth is, with ten years in the Marine Reserves.
More accurately, you put your mouth where your money is, since the Reserves do pay you for your time. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: Forgive my lack of understanding in tax law, but isn't it illegal to opt out of any or all of your taxes? Or is your point that if "everyone" opted out, the government would have to accept general consensus?
[obvious dig on Canada] Yeah, but who would want to end up like Canada [\obvious dig on Canada] ... Edit: Do you really think Americans (even colonial ones) would wait 115 years for independence. No, that is why it went down the way it did.
2) That dig seems unwarranted. You literally asked "... what would have happened? Would Britain have just said, go and be your own country?" I answered the first question and gave one (and a half if you count India) example of Britain doing just that.
I never said that approach is what America should have done. I'm just explaining why I think your assertion that America would still be under British rule is extremely unlikely.
I don't see how your edit relates.
1) My point is that you should probably read the linked essay Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata:
quote:I think the ones that sign up all gung ho to defend the US of A are misguided by fighting in Iraq, because the fight they are getting into isn't making us safer, it's making it more dangerous for us. And I think that many of them might not fully understand the situation if they think charging in with guns blazing is going to solve the problem, if that is indeed what they think
Let me say again, the US military is totally under civilian control. No soldier or sailer would, in their capacity as a member of the US military "think that charging in with guns" is going to solve any problem. That "think" (decision) is made by the duly elected civilian government. People join the military for lots of reasons. But, I still think that one reason that is fairly common with all, is the feeling that they should serve their country.
Given the recruitment problems the Army is having, and the publicity, I can't imagine anyone signing up wouldn't automatically assume that they will be sent to Iraq as soon as they finish training. They don't choose where they go, and all big level decisions are made by the civilian authorities, but generals aren't powerless, and everyday citizens joining up have a pretty good idea why. Back in WWII, they signed up ready to go to Europe or Japan, they knew where they were going, they didn't just sign up not having a clue with the vague notion of defending America.
Icarus - Thanks, that is what I meant.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: Edit: Do you really think Americans (even colonial ones) would wait 115 years for independence. No, that is why it went down the way it did.
Why wouldn't they? They'd already 'waited' 130 years, after all. Anyway, your challenge applies just as well in the other direction: Where would you have been without the English military? Why, you'd have been independent years before, and without the rather nasty and destructive civil war at that.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:would British control of the United States would really have lasted not only to 1982, but to 2007? Is there any reason why Britain would conceed control of Canada but hold onto the US? Would its hold really been able to survive WWI, WWII, or the Civil War? I just find that incredibly unlikely.
Just to jump in with a train of thought as I read this thread.... Forgive me if this has already been addressed.
Why are we assuming any or all of these things would have happened in a history where the United States is controlled by Britain?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Captain Kirk would make them happen, no matter how many hot chicks had to die.
[ July 25, 2007, 12:15 AM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Uh oh, now we're going to get into a debate on the morality of Kirk and Orion slave girls.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: Why are we assuming any or all of these things would have happened in a history where the United States is controlled by Britain?
Actually we don't have to assume that, my point was just that any one of those listed events (or more importantly, something similar, born out of the same factors) would likely have destabilized British control of North America by now, 250 years after, even if there was no war of independence.
Obviously I have no way of testing this. I would however note that in some sense, "he started it." Trivially, it is *at least* as hard to prove a claim that "the British Empire would still exist and would include the US, taxation without representation and all" as my claim which would be "I doubt the empire would have survived, let alone including the US, till now."
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Why I support the "Troops", the Military, and not the mission.
Its quite simple.
Our soldiers are willing to risk their futures, their lives, and their bodies to protect me, my country, and its interests. There is an unspoken, unwritten agreement between them and the politicians.
A Soldier will help win the war. A politician will help win the peace. Well, frankly, the War against Sadaam Hussein was over years ago. The military, the troops, the soldier did an unbelievably professional job winning that conflict.
Then the politicians, led by this administration, blew the peace. They sent in the wrong people to enforce the wrong policies that led to the growth of the insurgeants, the violence and chaos, and the emergence of "Al Queda in Iraq" that President Bush spent a good part of yesterday warning us was the great danger.
And we elected those politicians.
The ones that did not have a rebuilding plan for Iraq other than, "Their oil will pay for it."
The ones that sent hordes of new "Liberty College" graduates, neo-cons and Christian Evangelical Armegedonists to run the US rebuilding structure, and pitted them against each other with no oversite.
The ones that wanted all "Baathists" and all Military people removed from any place in Iraq society, cutting them off from all government jobs. Considering that Government jobs were all that were running after the war, they just assumed that if you write them off, then they will vanish--much like pregnant teens, gay lovers, and others that did not fit into their world view.
The ones that replaced the winning generals, after the "war" was won, with the least experienced General in the US army to start the rebuilding, since it was no longer a priority.
The ones that were more worried about winning the hearts and minds of voters, than of potential allies, now enemies in Iraq.
So the politicians and the strategies were ruinous to Iraq, and who is paying the price for these mistakes?
The Iraqi people of course.
And
The US Soldier. The troops who held up their end of the bargain. They fought, and they fight, bravely and professionally. Most fight with honor and with an eye for causing as little damage as possible. And the politicians who have neither honor, bravery, professionalism, or a desire to cause as little damage as possible, except to their own jobs, betray them.
Posted by baduffer (Member # 10469) on :
I saw this and thought it fit.
The Sons of Martha Rudyard Kipling
The Sons of Mary seldom bother, for they have inherited that good part; But the Sons of Martha favour their Mother of the careful soul and the troubled heart. And because she lost her temper once, and because she was rude to the Lord her Guest, Her Sons must wait upon Mary's Sons, world without end, reprieve, or rest.
It is their care in all the ages to take the buffet and cushion the shock. It is their care that the gear engages; it is their care that the switches lock. It is their care that the wheels run truly; it is their care to embark and entrain, Tally, transport, and deliver duly the Sons of Mary by land and main.
They say to mountains ``Be ye removèd.'' They say to the lesser floods ``Be dry.'' Under their rods are the rocks reprovèd--- they are not afraid of that which is high. Then do the hill-tops shake to the summit--- then is the bed of the deep laid bare, That the Sons of Mary may overcome it, pleasantly sleeping and unaware.
They finger Death at their gloves' end where they piece and repiece the living wires. He rears against the gates they tend: they feed him hungry behind their fires. Early at dawn, ere men see clear, they stumble into his terrible stall, And hale him forth like a haltered steer, and goad and turn him till evenfall.
To these from birth is Belief forbidden; from these till death is Relief afar. They are concerned with matters hidden--- under the earthline their altars are--- The secret fountains to follow up, waters withdrawn to restore to the mouth, And gather the floods as in a cup, and pour them again at a city's drouth.
They do not preach that their God will rouse them a little before the nuts work loose. They do not preach that His Pity allows them to drop their job when they damn-well choose. As in the thronged and the lighted ways, so in the dark and the desert they stand, Wary and watchful all their days that their brethren's ways may be long in the land.
Raise ye the stone or cleave the wood to make a path more fair or flat; Lo, it is black already with the blood some Son of Martha spilled for that! Not as a ladder from earth to Heaven, not as a witness to any creed, But simple service simply given to his own kind in their common need.
And the Sons of Mary smile and are blessèd--- they know the Angels are on their side. They know in them is the Grace confessèd, and for them are the Mercies multiplied. They sit at the feet---they hear the Word--- they see how truly the Promise runs. They have cast their burden upon the Lord, and--- the Lord He lays it on Martha's Sons!
Posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix (Member # 10094) on :
Dan_Raven, I agree with you on the soldiers doing their jobs. This was one of the most efficient and lop sided military conflicts in our history as a nation. If Bush had half as good of an exit strategy as he did in regards to his military service, things would have been a bit better.
The trouble with this situation though goes way back even before his daddy and the first gulf war. A long time ago it was decided to divide up the middle east into tidy little nations that was easier to control. Lawrence of Arabia even stated that drawing those lines to our whim woudl cause so much conflict it might not ever be resolved.
I truly think the fault in this growing conflict is not on the shoulders of our troops. It is on the shoulders of our ancestors, and up to our current politicians to correct.
Some solutions are simple in idea, but very difficult in execution. First we need more troops (if even for a short period of time) to secure the land, guard the borders and give people a chance to breath. If we pull out now, it will be a thousand times worse for the average American citizen for several reasons. The "enemy" would see that as a major victory, and be encouraged. We woudl also create a nation that will hate us long after our children's children die.
Imagine a nation that was conquered, torn apart, and then left to fend for itself. There would be some anger there for sure. We need to do all we can to make them stable, not like us, but stable.
The other solution maybe to divide the lands based on the groups that hate each other, and make several stable nations out of them. Maybe then they can work towards living together if we take them apart.
After that we need to not meddle in their affairs, and let them make their on choices. They need to make their own mistakes, and we need to stop thinking of them as children, because they do not hold the same ideas of freedom we do.
Of all the solutions only a small part would be done by the soldiers, but until they are done the soldiers woudl have to stay and wait. It is not the soldiers that are evil, they are just men and women like us, and unless you see yourself as evil you can understand what I am saying.
I say no one hates war more then a soldier for a reason. We have so much more to lose. While most people watch the events from their dinner table, they are living in a horror film. Soldiers talk of bravado, and dying for their countries. They talk of making the other slub die for his. The puff up their chest, and talk the John Wayne, but I know their is not a one of us in my old unit that would rather be in a bar with a beer and our friends, then sending good news down range.
We talk about how much God loves Marines for keeping heaven and hell full of fresh souls, but in reality we can think of a thousand places we would rather be then right there in the $#*^. I knew this but I still went, hoping that one day the men on hill would grow tired of it, and get better at their jobs, so we would rarely do ours.
I spent a few years under the gun, and still lose sleep over it. So I can safely say Artemisia that nobody hates war more then a soldier, but we still go. Its that since of duty that makes us go, we made a promise that we would go, in the hopes that some one else would not have to.
Some times words don't work, and thats when the boys in green got paid to get mean. It is a necessary evil ever since we fist started drawing lines on land, and claiming things as our own. Not all soldiers feel that same level of purpose, some are just a 4 year and go kinda of person, but they get the feeling. They understand, or they wouldn't even last the four years.
You train to be a killer, but not a murderer. There is a difference.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:How many of you "I support the military" guys are/have been willing to sign on the line and actually serve your country.
I don't support the military, but I'd be willing to serve. I'm physically fine, but I imagine I'd get bounced quickly because I'd see the ordeal like a pap smear, sad and degrading but necessary.
Irami, given you've never had a pap smear, I find your analogy odd to say the least.
For the record, pap smears are neither sad nor degrading. They can be uncomfortable (but are not always), but I have no idea why you would mention them, and I think your use of language is potentially dangerous.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:It sounds like you are saying that you do not respect anybody who does not serve--or at least, any able-bodied man who does not serve. Is that interpretation of your words correct? If so, then screw you; you're not worth conversing with. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you read the thread, my objections are to the hawks in the US (and on this thread) who are quick to advocate "staying the course" and "winning the war on terror" claiming to "support our military", but would never ever consider serving. I have a secondary gripe with others that assume that somehow "the military" is responsible for the mess we are in.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:The obligation for the others is only a moral one and can be ignored. As long as the government chooses to run with an "all volunteer force" ignore the obligation. Feel free to vote to send "those other guys" anywhere you want. I will not respect you.
Are you still talking about people that are vocally pro-war or pro-Iraqi occupation that don't enlist? Or have you moved on to talking about everyone who doesn't enlist?
Edit: Ah, never mind. You answered while I was typing.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by imogen: For the record, pap smears are neither sad nor degrading. They can be uncomfortable (but are not always), but I have no idea why you would mention them, and I think your use of language is potentially dangerous.
Agreed!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: [qb]
quote:If the church had never traditionally made this demand of young men I would be very confident that enlistment rates in Utah would be average if not above average.
"If I didn't have to do X, I would join up."
Does Norway have a similar cultural quirk? Can you even name a state that has something identical to a Mormon missionary?
Eh? You asserted that being a missionary is more important than joining the military.
That is not what I am trying to say. I'm saying that because that obligation exists many men in Utah who are of the prime age to be recruited simply choose not to spare another 4 years and commence college at the age of 25. In war time when the need for military personell is dire missionary activities are typically suspended until the conflict is concluded. Clearly missionary work does not simply trump army service.
quote: Others assert that going to college is more important than joining the military. I am saying that there is no moral difference between the two, and the particular situation of becoming a missionary therefore has no bearing on whether Utahns should, or should not, bear their proportional share of the military burden.
Except that there are programs that a person could enroll in WHILE going to college, no such program exists for missionary work, I don't know if there should be, I don't have an opinion on this point.
quote: Norway has conscription, and also no regime-changing ambitions and no power-projection capability anyway, making it a bit difficult to compare the situations.
I should note that in countries with similar conscription like say Taiwan, men can choose to serve in the military first or do missionary work first, but both have to be filled.
A kid I knew can never return to Singapore because he fled the country as his age of consripion loomed on the horizon.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
quote:Except that there are programs that a person could enroll in WHILE going to college, no such program exists for missionary work, I don't know if there should be, I don't have an opinion on this point.
The National Guard (and I believe the Reserves) has a program which allows members to take two years off during their enlistment to serve an LDS (or other) mission. The time is made up after the mission.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by imogen: For the record, pap smears are neither sad nor degrading. They can be uncomfortable (but are not always), but I have no idea why you would mention them, and I think your use of language is potentially dangerous.
Agreed!
Absolutely.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata:
quote:Except that there are programs that a person could enroll in WHILE going to college, no such program exists for missionary work, I don't know if there should be, I don't have an opinion on this point.
The National Guard (and I believe the Reserves) has a program which allows members to take two years off during their enlistment to serve an LDS (or other) mission. The time is made up after the mission.
I've never heard of this program. I'll have to ask my brother in law about it.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Ask your state guard recruter about it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: Ask your state guard recruter about it.
I'm not on a first name basis with him.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17:
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: OK. Show of hands! How many of you "I support the military" guys are/have been willing to sign on the line and actually serve your country.
Total of seven years served, two honorable discharges (I went back for a second round after being out for six months), a few medals, and I cussed out a full bird Colonel (funny story).
Supporting policy is different than supporting the troops. Many are working class, blue collar kids who don't have many other options. That was the case for me. When I joined they didn't promise "money for college". That would have been nice to have something other than the GI Bill.
You can disagree with the war. You can hate the people who are sending them over. But don't hate the troops. They are doing a job that, unless you are wearing a uniform right now, you are not willing to do.
A statement like yours doesn't really address the concerns that guy brought up in his video. He thinks military enlistees are immoral for promising to kill whatever the government tells them to, which is not a concern you can dismiss by saying those kids are just in it for some money or college or whatever. I agree with you that the financial offer the military provides is or seems necessary for some people, but I don't think that's related to the moral choice. (I don't actually agree with the video poster--I think it's really more of a matter of these kids trusting that the government will use their power over them responsibly and only tell them to kill people when it is necessary for some good cause or something than them just handing over this
Of course, it's also important to remember that the choice to kill whatever the government tells you to isn't actually finalized until you actually do it, and many soldiers never have to make that decision*, so I don't think signing up (trusting the government will only tell you to kill things when it is moral) is an absolutely immoral choice. "Just following orders" is not a good enough defense if the acts that were ordered were wrong.
*I am not trying to say that every use of the military to kill is wrong, only that it is obvious that some current uses of the military are wrong.
quote:Originally posted by brojack17:
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: Incidently, I don't think soldiers are misguided for joining the military if they feel called to do that. However, I do think the country is miguided in using them as we use them.
That is the point I was trying to make. You can discuss all day long about why we are there, if we should be there, is it illegal for us to be there, etc. But the troops are going where they are told and are doing what they are told. We don't know the circumstances around their enlistment. We should support the individual soldier.
You can't completely ignore the collective level. Just like it is not good for us to be in Iraq right now on the whole, it is not good for each individual soldier to be in Iraq.
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: What country in history has been able to survive without a military?
Japan is doing pretty well these days, much better than when they had a military.
quote:Originally posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix: Most people who object to a military and call soldiers violent and mindless killers.
This is absolutely false.
quote:They talk of a world that a military is not needed, and how it is a barbaric through back. I can understand this being a former soldier myself. I agree that war is barbaric, and there is no glory in it. The glory comes from those that know how horrible and meaningless most wars are, but they still sign up to serve.
How is that a glorious decision?
quote:What ever reason a man or woman signs that paper, they have at least a small understanding of the risk they are taking. They understand that they lose their lives to defend policies they may not agree with. They understand they might not agree 100% with existing government, but they can still die on their word.
It is on the backs of these men and women that people who live in a fantasy world, can protest by burning the flag, speak their mind in public, or spit on the same uniform that gives them the right to do it.
Have you ever seen an American burn an American flag? People bring this up a lot as if it happens, and I think there were probably only a handful occurrences of this recently. This form of protest that is supposedly so offensive just doesn't exist.
quote:No body hates war more then a soldier. I never looked forward to doing my job under any means, but I knew it had to be done and I was willing to do it, so that hopefully one day my daughter, or my future grand children, might not have to. I did this to insure that my children, and my children's children had the choice to do those silly things like flag burning, or spitting on soldiers.
I joined the military to protect each persons right to argue with me. I have been to other countries were this is not possible and it is not better then the US. I have been to countries controlled by religious ideas, and I understand why our founding fathers (many of them very spiritual) understood the need for separation of church and state.
I have taken human life, I have saved human life, and while I would love nothing more then to leave that in the hands of God, in this world we live it is not a reality we can avoid. Many people out there do not see us Americans as human, and while they are right some times, it does not give them the right to force their ideas on us. In those cases we need a military to protect ourselves, and to prevent unnecessary loss of life.
When has somebody "out there" forced their ideas on us? I've never had somebody else's idea forced on me.
quote:Violence brings more violence, I understand that. But if we only use as much force as required, or get so good at it, those that use violence as their tool are less likely to want to fight. Persons like that are usually bullies and cowards, and only attack people that they feel can not hurt them. They fear that pain, and because of that people here in the US can voice their opinions of how the world SHOULD be, and live that fantasy. But until every one understands basic human rights, and respects the opinions of others, we will always need a military force of some capacity.
I don't think we have the capability to pursue a strategy like you describe right now. We are obviously unable to make Iraqi insurgents think their activity is too risky to engage in, as we can tell from ever-increasing resistance to our presence. I think the bullies are the ones sending a military off to do their violence for them, who have never served in the military themselves and would not send their kids there. The only way to stop that kind of behavior is to resist paying for it, as the man from the video in the original post is doing or to not sign up for it and encourage others to not sign up for it. This is a bottom-up sort of approach.
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: I have no problem with persons with physical limitations or sincere conscientious objectors. I do have a problem with young healthy guys who pontificate about staying the course and winning the war on terror, while they enrich themselves (or prepare to do so.) with no feeling of guilt for avoiding military service.
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: I think our society should do its best to support those who choose to serve in some capacity, whether in the military, as a law enforcement officer, or as a public school teacher. However, I don't think "support" necessarily means doing that particular job. It means that we as a society ensure that people receive good pay and benefits. It means that we acknowledge that what they're doing is a public service. It means that we do what we can to help them do their jobs safely and effectively, whether that's proper training and equipment, choosing our wars wisely, or providing adequate funding. I have spent some time and money supporting the public education system. I believe that it's a vital public service. Am I hypocritical because I say I support the teachers but don't want to teach?
You're right. The other way we could make serving in the military a non-immoral choice would be top-down: we could replace the current government with one that would use military resources morally.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Japan is doing pretty well these days, much better than when they had a military.
They only just recently got permission to build an army with capabilities beyond a "defensive motive." They have started persuing this course. This is in direct response to China who is pushing VERY hard to update and expand its military capabilities. Until the 1980s the abilities of Japan's neighbors to wage war were a joke.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Until the 1980s the abilities of Japan's neighbors to wage war were a joke.
And Canada and Mexico are huge threats to us.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
If you say everyone has a moral obligation to be a soldier, wouldn't you also say that everyone has a moral obligation to be a teacher? After all, teachers do often say the reason they do what they do is because they feel a moral need to help children - just as soldiers feel the moral need to defend. Both needs are legitimate needs that must be fulfilled, and I would argue that the need for education is actually considerably greater than the need for war-fighting. So why would one moral obligation exist but not the other?
Is it because we have all received the benefits of the soldiers who fought to secure America for us? It is equally true that everyone who received a free education did so because of the efforts of the teachers who came before us - so I don't think that argument works.
On that note, why doesn't everyone have an obligation to do EVERYTHING? Why doesn't everyone have an obligation to become a doctor? After all, health care is an important need, and all our lives depended on doctors even since we were born. Why doesn't everyone have an obligation to become a janitor? Sanitation is key to the health of our nation, and we have all taken benefits from those who keep the world clean. Why doesn't everyone have a moral obligation to become a firefighter, or a politician, or a cook, or a computer programmer, or a preacher?
My best guess is that we don't have moral obligations for any of those things, and that we don't have moral obligations to be soldiers either. I think our actual moral obligation is to take the gifts we personally have been given and use them to the best of our abilities to serve whatever we believe the greater good to be. Perhaps for some in some situations that may mean fighting in wars. For others it probably means entirely different professions.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay:
quote:Until the 1980s the abilities of Japan's neighbors to wage war were a joke.
And Canada and Mexico are huge threats to us.
I'm not sure what you are getting at.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Japan was given as an example of a nation that's gotten along fine without an offensive army. You countered by saying that they're starting to develop one now, but in the past they didn't really need one, because their neighbors didn't constitute a real threat to them. My statement was meant to point out that that didn't really serve as a good rebuttal, since our neighbors aren't a threat to us, either. So if Japan didn't need more than a defensive army in the past because none of the countries around them could threaten them, than that applies to us now, too.
As it happens, I don't think we should downsize our armed forces to purely defensive capabilities, although I would rather it was smaller than it is now. But saying that another country needs more of an army now because their neighbors are more of a threat. . . well, we could cut our military in half and still be able to easily defend ourselves from our neighbors, if need be.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
ElJay: But remember the only reason Japan's army was removed in the first place was because of bad behavior. The US basically told Japan, "We are in charge of things in East Asia for the time being," and they had no choice but to accept.
edit: The US for the past 50+ years has acted as Japan's de facto military.
If for some reason the US had been an aggressor in WW2 and a foreign power had been forced to invade us to get us to stop our inhuman imperialist empire expansion plans then yes I would agree the US would NOT currently need a large army. If the US chose to not involve itself in world affairs then that in of itself would warrant a downsizing of the military.
Unfortunately or perhaps fortunately depending on who you talk to, America has ALWAYS wanted to be politically neutral while choosing sides when it comes to economics. I personally think its our failure to remain neutral or isolationist economically that prevents us from ever being either politically.
Since we cannot remain politically neutral we have to have a larger army then we would otherwise need as we tend to step on people's toes.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I know why Japan's military capabilities were restricted. The fact remains that other countries that participated heavily in the World Wars then downsized their military when the wars were over. They didn't get rid of them, certainly, but they downsized considerably more than the US has. Those countries all participate in world affairs, politically and certainly economically. Your argument does not hold water.
The other option to not having a larger army than everyone else, of course, would be to stop stepping on people's toes. You're basically saying "we need a large army so we can continue to act like a jerk towards the rest of the world." We don't need a large army, and we don't need to act like a jerk.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
ElJay: I think you are misunderstanding me.
The US did not downsize as much as other countries as they recognized the Soviet Union as a threat just as dangerous as Hitler. There was a sharp devision in the US as to whether we should gear up to take on Russia or if we should recede back into an isolationist mode.
Not to mention most European militaries had been downsized as that is the natural result of years of fighting, your stuff gets blown up and your men die.
After WW2 we had periods of downsizing and bolstering the military. We didn't just go up and up and up. Reagan created an unprecidented jolt in military spending, and since then we've been at a pretty high level.
quote:The other option to not having a larger army than everyone else, of course, would be to stop stepping on people's toes. You're basically saying "we need a large army so we can continue to act like a jerk towards the rest of the world." We don't need a large army, and we don't need to act like a jerk.
That is not the arguement I was trying to make. I am saying that because the US is NOT economically neutral it will result in our stepping on people's toes. The response we have opted to take since people don't like having their toes stepped on is to bolster our military.
I did not enter this arguement with an opinion on whether our military is too large, too small, or just right. Merely that Japan is not a good example of a successful country not needing a military as the US has been acting as its de facto military for 50+ years, Taiwan is the exact same deal. Now that China is becoming a major player in the world scene, we have basically said to Japan, "Look to yourselves more for protection as China is getting awful big. Go ahead and build a bigger army."
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
To go back to the original comment, I'm not entirely sure if Japan is really a good example of a nation without a military, especially when it comes to the issue of paying taxes to support one.
Sure, legally they have word games, but practically speaking they spent about the sixth most in the world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures (I suspect that while Japan is officially fifth, they probably under-counted China, and the US for that matter, although that would not change the order)
Indeed, depending on the interpretation of BB's original use of the world "recently", it seems that their defence spending has been stable for a while being sixth as far back as 1987. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_budget_of_Japan Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
And the cold war has been over for 20 years. *shrug* I still don't think your argument works, and you're not telling me anything I don't know. We, as a country, have made a choice to be the most powerful military force in the world. It was not a necessary choice.
And no matter how many times you say "because we're not economically neutral we're going to step on people's toes so we need a big army," the fact remains that no other country is economically neutral either, and plenty of them manage just fine without stepping on other people's toes, or at least not to the extent we do. I do not accept that as a valid reason for needing a big army.
I think that if we stepped back from our "policing the world" mode, other countries would step up to fill the gap, and the resulting balance of power would be healthier for the entire world, not to mention making us less of a target for people who are looking for something to hate.
Posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix (Member # 10094) on :
To bring the thread back to the point a bit,..
choosing to be a solider does not show a lack of moral fortitude in my opinion. I think it actually shows a lot more of it. I woudl be arguing the opposite of the argument though with the same assumptions that we as a people share the same morality.
Each of us have a different idea of what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior. The one thing I will say though is that a solider is a soldier and that is there job. You can have a moral doctor or an immoral one.Same goes for any job, cop, teacher, lawyer (though mos tin this trade lean to the latter) driver, banker, and soldier.
It is blanket statements that people use that show their ignorance in understanding what it means to be an American. You can't put label on us that fully describes us. We are not the melting pot that we talk about through history, but more of a stew. Peas and Carrots living together but you can still pick them out.
This is what makes us nearly unique as a country, because of our diversity of immigration, and our own regional diversity.
Because of this stating the choice to become a soldier is a choice of questionable morality shows this persons ignorance in assuming we all think just like him. I woudl even go as far, because of the extremist views to say this person may even be working for other extremist, and can not be happy being in a free America because their view is so blinded they can not see, understand, or tolerate the diversity that has made this country so great.
But is it because of those very soldiers that he bad mouthed, that he has the right to be an idiot, and can even speak out and prove it to people, with out the fear of being dragged off to a gulag, put to death, or some other horrible act that might actually be good for the gene puddle.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:But is it because of those very soldiers that he bad mouthed, that he has the right to be an idiot, and can even speak out and prove it to people, with out the fear of being dragged off to a gulag, put to death, or some other horrible act that might actually be good for the gene puddle.
How do the soldiers prevent these things?
---
edit:
quote:choosing to be a solider does not show a lack of moral fortitude in my opinion. I think it actually shows a lot more of it.
That would rely more on how and why the decision was made than on the decision itself, wouldn't it?
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:But is it because of those very soldiers that he bad mouthed, that he has the right to be an idiot, and can even speak out and prove it to people, with out the fear of being dragged off to a gulag, put to death, or some other horrible act that might actually be good for the gene puddle.
How do the soldiers prevent these things?
By protecting the constitution that ensures those rights. It even states it in the soldiers oath.
quote:I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC; THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; AND THAT I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE. SO HELP ME GOD.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:By protecting the constitution that ensures those rights. It even states it in the soldiers oath.
I wasn't aware the Constitution was under serious attack. What are these threats and how are the soldiers defending against them?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: And the cold war has been over for 20 years. *shrug* I still don't think your argument works, and you're not telling me anything I don't know. We, as a country, have made a choice to be the most powerful military force in the world. It was not a necessary choice.
Please understand I am saying, "This is what happened, this is the rationale used," not, "This is why what we did is right IMO."
quote: And no matter how many times you say "because we're not economically neutral we're going to step on people's toes so we need a big army," the fact remains that no other country is economically neutral either, and plenty of them manage just fine without stepping on other people's toes, or at least not to the extent we do. I do not accept that as a valid reason for needing a big army.
Again I never said, "Because we step on toes we need a big army, I said in effect, "The US steps on toes and because we do the country has opted for a large army." I'm NOT saying anything close to, "I agree or disagree."
If the country is not economically neutral I challenge you to find one that does not step on toes.
quote: I think that if we stepped back from our "policing the world" mode, other countries would step up to fill the gap, and the resulting balance of power would be healthier for the entire world, not to mention making us less of a target for people who are looking for something to hate.
Maybe so, but its the chicken egg arguement. We took the route and now find ourselves policing the world. Can we step back now, who will fill the gap? Again I am NOT saying what the US has done is right or wrong. The only reason I got into this arguement is because somebody said, "Japan has a tiny military and look it's doing super good!"
America's foreign policy would have to be drastically different for us to warrant a serious downsizing of the military. It would not be an easy sale to the American people as well. Again! I am not saying whether I think we should or should not downsize the military.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Just because the constitution is not currently under attack does not mean soldiers are not ready to defend it. Our soldiers, right now are "obeying the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over them".
They guy from the original link is protected by the constitution. The soldiers protect, when needed, the constitution.
Edit: my brother-in-law is a firefighter. I just im'd him, there is no fire right now. He's still a firefighter and the city of Mannford, Oklahoma still needs him.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
If the Constitution is not under attack, it doesn't seem correct to me to say that it is because of our current soldiers that people have rights.
I can't think of a military action in my life time where a member of our armed forces has fought for my rights or to defend the constitution. I do not anticipate having any such thing occur in my remaining lifetime.
As such, I don't think the original claim is accurate.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
I don't think the current danger to the Constitution is coming from something soldiers can protect against. Let us know if you have any examples.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:I can't think of a military action in my life time where a member of our armed forces has fought for my rights or to defend the constitution.
I assume you mean "directly fought for...etc." not, "indirectly fought...etc."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Edit: my brother-in-law is a firefighter. I just im'd him, there is no fire right now. He's still a firefighter and the city of Mannford, Oklahoma still needs him.
Could you explain what future dangers you see the Constitution being in where our military will be needed to defend against?
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:I can't think of a military action in my life time where a member of our armed forces has fought for my rights or to defend the constitution.
I assume you mean "directly fought for...etc." not, "indirectly fought...etc."
what forces have threatened our Constitution that soldiers can fight against?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
How would they have "indirectly fought" for my freedoms?
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: If the Constitution is not under attack, it doesn't seem correct to me to say that it is because of our current soldiers that people have rights.
Of course it is. Are you going to walk into a yard where a huge pit bull is chained up and there is a beware of dog sign on the fence?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: How would they have "indirectly fought" for my freedoms?
Hoo boy. OK when they sent the national guard to police New Orleans that was the armed forces fighting for the consitutional rights of the people there and by extension everywhere.
If the government had sent nobody they would be ignoring what the constitution clearly mandates and the integrity of our peaceful society as outlined by that constitution would be seriously damaged. The constitution works because the government has muscle, i.e the military to make sure it is observed.
Though this didn't happen in your lifetime, at least I hope not Kennedy sending troops to enforce integration (desegregation?) was an excelent example of this.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Could the soldiers please fix the wiretapping thing? Thanks! And maybe reign in the executive branch?
BlackBlade, I don't know what MrSquicky meant, but I would say directly or indirectly.
And it might help if you explained what you mean by "economically neutral". Lots of countries participate in the global market without needing big armies or stepping on toes.
edit to add: Cross posted while you were giving examples. We hardly need a military this size to do those kinds of things.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Edit: my brother-in-law is a firefighter. I just im'd him, there is no fire right now. He's still a firefighter and the city of Mannford, Oklahoma still needs him.
Could you explain what future dangers you see the Constitution being in where our military will be needed to defend against?
No, I can't. My crystal ball is broken. Just because we can't predict a fight doesn't mean we shouldn't be ready for one.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:OK when they sent the national guard to police New Orleans that was the armed forces fighting for the consitutional rights of the people there and by extension everywhere.
Which Constitutional rights were those?
In addition, I wouldn't term that a "military action". Would you?
---
quote: Are you going to walk into a yard where a huge pit bull is chained up and there is a beware of dog sign on the fence?
How is this relevant?
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: If the Constitution is not under attack, it doesn't seem correct to me to say that it is because of our current soldiers that people have rights.
Of course it is. Are you going to walk into a yard where a huge pit bull is chained up and there is a beware of dog sign on the fence?
Hahaha what the heck are you talking about?
Soldiers, go get to work on habeas corpus and illegal wiretapping, and go find out what Gonzales was talking about when he revealed the existence of heretofore unknown spying programs the other day.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Having a daunting military force, I would think, is a deterrent for an invading force. (ie. a big pit bull in the yard).
Should I have said a sleeping giant?
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Hoo boy. OK when they sent the national guard to police New Orleans that was the armed forces fighting for the consitutional rights of the people there and by extension everywhere.
If the government had sent nobody they would be ignoring what the constitution clearly mandates and the integrity of our peaceful society as outlined by that constitution would be seriously damaged. The constitution works because the government has muscle, i.e the military to make sure it is observed.
Though this didn't happen in your lifetime, at least I hope not Kennedy sending troops to enforce integration (desegregation?) was an excelent example of this.
National guard isn't exactly active-duty standing offensive-capability army.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Personally, I stand ready to defend motherhood and blueberry pie. (But not that icky apple stuff.) Now, I grant you that these are maybe not that much under attack at the moment; but that's because I stand ready to defend them. So think for a moment about motherhood and pie before you attack my morals. You're not against motherhood, are you?
Posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix (Member # 10094) on :
Indirectly they have gone to hostile countries and fought. they have gone to troubled regions to bring stability. Not all those missions were successful, but they went all the same. They have done this in your life time and more then once if you are over the age of 20. If there is a hostile nation out there that threatens our nation, and want to force us to their way of life, they threaten the constitution and your freedom. The most obvious example would be 9-11. You find those responsible and you make sure they are no longer capable of doing anything of that magnitude again.
MrSquicky I can't make you understand that. If you can't see the sacrifice or understand how they protect your freedoms, your rights, and your liberties if they are fighting or not, then I am not sure we can even talk rationally about something like this.
Think of each soldier in peace as being a fence, it really does nothing but keep honest people honest, but it does help. It helps protect by just being there.
Directly our troops have been on foreign soil more times then I can count in my life time. Each one of the missions, failed or successful were about protecting the integrity of our nation, and in essence defending the ideals and principles in the Constitution.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato: Soldiers, go get to work on habeas corpus and illegal wiretapping, and go find out what Gonzales was talking about when he revealed the existence of heretofore unknown spying programs the other day.
Not really what the soldiers are for. If they were directed to, they could. But that is what the FBI and CIA are for. Also, that is what elected officials are for.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Personally, I stand ready to defend motherhood and blueberry pie. (But not that icky apple stuff.) Now, I grant you that these are maybe not that much under attack at the moment; but that's because I stand ready to defend them. So think for a moment about motherhood and pie before you attack my morals. You're not against motherhood, are you?
meanwhile the chef is embezzling tons of whipped cream and you can't do anything about it. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Frankly, for all the complaining Europe and the rest of the world do about our military, I think at the end of the day most of them are greatful that they don't have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars that they don't have when we'll do it for them. Even so, there's a bit of an arms race building up in Europe and Asia right now, you just don't see it talked about a lot. India is buying and building thousands of tanks from Russia, Britain, Italy and France are increasing the size of their navies, China has increased military spending at a higher percentage than any nation on earth, upgrading all areas of their forces at the same time.
The whole thing snowballs after awhile. China wants to be a superpower, so they build up. India wants the ability to fight them off, so they build up, and Pakistan is afraid of India so they build up. Japan and South Korea are both afraid of China and North Korea, so they get twitchy and build up too. Meanwhile everyone on the other side of the planet gets nervous and doesn't want to count on the US to be their Big Stick anymore, so they build up, though slowly, as well. The most visible buildup I see in Europe is an old fashioned navy buildup. France, Italy and GB are all building new and more aircraft carriers, which in military parlance is the single most expensive and aggressive offensive tool in a nation's arsenal (per unit, obviously nukes are more destructive, just not as expensive per unit, and for that matter have no finesse).
But I think you have to look at the US force more focused than just one big buildup. We powered down big time after WWII, and it cost us a lot to ramp back up for Korea, and the same thing with Vietnam, with Gulf War I, and now huge expenditures for Gulf War II. We have a history of disarming after a major conflict only to spend a lot of money to rearm for the next one. The prevailing thought is that we should cut costs where we can, but not limit our strategic options, less we be caught off guard. The Cold War might have ended 20 years ago, but the world didn't necessarily become a safer place. If anything, it might only have become more dangerous. We understood the Russians, they were a centralized power that we could focus on, we knew where they were, and we were good at spying on them and staying two or three steps ahead.
Now the threat is from 100 different angles, we don't understand them at all, and we don't know how they think or where they are. It's perhaps a much more dangerous world, and while someone like Rumsfeld would tell you that we don't need tanks to fight terorrists, the fact of the matter is that Russia isn't gone, just sleeping while they figure out what kind of nation they want to be, and China is perhaps our biggest future threat, regardless of the money we make off each other, that isn't a static relationship, and money isn't a safety shield against war (France was Germany's biggest trading partner prior to WWI). So we need a small agile force to fight terrorists, a huge intelligence apparatus, and we still need those tanks, attack helicopters, and fighter jets that traditionally fight big land and air powers. If Europe decided to step up in a big way and bolster the force of the West, then things would be different, but Europe is quite content to let itself be a very loud neighbor that doesn't really seem willing to do anything concrete, and while that remains the status quo, don't expect things to change much over here.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Having a daunting military force, I would think, is a deterrent for an invading force.
What invading force are you talking about?
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix: Indirectly they have gone to hostile countries and fought. they have gone to troubled regions to bring stability. Not all those missions were successful, but they went all the same. They have done this in your life time and more then once if you are over the age of 20. If there is a hostile nation out there that threatens our nation, and want to force us to their way of life, they threaten the constitution and your freedom. The most obvious example would be 9-11. You find those responsible and you make sure they are no longer capable of doing anything of that magnitude again.
Are you seriously saying Iraq had something to do with 9/11 or was threatening the US? (HOW WAS IRAQ THREATENING THE US CONSTITUTION?)
If so, what exactly, do you think the connection between 9/11 and Iraq was?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote: If there is a hostile nation out there that threatens our nation, and want to force us to their way of life, they threaten the constitution and your freedom. The most obvious example would be 9-11. You find those responsible and you make sure they are no longer capable of doing anything of that magnitude again.
What countries are these that actually threaten our nation? How could they force us to their way of life?
How did 9/11 threaten our way of life or the Constitution, other than by our leaders' reaction to it?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: [qb]
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: [qb]
quote:If the church had never traditionally made this demand of young men I would be very confident that enlistment rates in Utah would be average if not above average.
"If I didn't have to do X, I would join up."
Does Norway have a similar cultural quirk? Can you even name a state that has something identical to a Mormon missionary?
Eh? You asserted that being a missionary is more important than joining the military.
That is not what I am trying to say. I'm saying that because that obligation exists many men in Utah who are of the prime age to be recruited simply choose not to spare another 4 years and commence college at the age of 25.
And because of the perceived obligation to go to college, many young men elsewhere likewise choose not to join. How is that any different? The point is: Here are these young men, who presumably support (by and large) the war in Iraq, who are choosing not to join up, in larger numbers than their counterparts elsewhere. Instead they go off to be missionaries. In other words, they consider missionary work more important than the military. In other places, people consider college more important. What is the difference?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:And it might help if you explained what you mean by "economically neutral". Lots of countries participate in the global market without needing big armies or stepping on toes.
The US does not do business in a neutral manner, we don't do business with whoever has money. Right after the revolutionary war, Great Britain and France said we could not trade with the other, they both started abducting our sailors and sinking our ships. Instead of saying, fine we won't trade with either or we insist on trading with both we tried to trade with Great Britian (the bigger trading partner) and pissed off France (our ally.)
In WWI, Germany did not want us trading with Great Britain, and vice versa. We declared our neutrality in the conflict and promptly sold arms/supplies to Great Britain. We did not sell them nor were we willing to sell them to the same degree to Germany. The Germans started sinking British cargo vessels that smuggled the US made supplies in and killed some Americans, we entered WW1.
WW2 we stopped selling oil to Japan and blockaded their ports so that we could pressure them into ceasing their invasion of South East Asia. If we were neutral as we said we were, we would sell arms/supplies to both axis and allies or refuse to sell to either.
If we were truly economically neutral we would go where the money is, which is what China does. We wouldn't sell arms to just Israel, we'd sell them to Palestinians. We would do business with Cuba. Switzerland is more of an economically neutral country, it is also neutral politically.
The US says, "What they are doing is wrong and we won't do business with them." That is not economically neutral.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
ANY invading force that may or may not be out there. ANY entity that would have the balls to attack the US.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix: If there is a hostile nation out there that threatens our nation, and want to force us to their way of life, they threaten the constitution and your freedom. The most obvious example would be 9-11.
Specifically, explain this sentence.
1. Who is "out there" threatening our nation's constitution? How are they a threat to it? 2. Why do you say they "want to force us to their way of life"? Who is that? What way of life is that, why do they want to force us to it? Why does this have nothing to do with our foreign policy? 3. How is 9/11 connected to a plot to "force us to their way of life"? 4. How would an event such as 9/11 "force us to" change our way of lives at all? What is your evidence of this happening?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix: Directly our troops have been on foreign soil more times then I can count in my life time. Each one of the missions, failed or successful were about protecting the integrity of our nation, and in essence defending the ideals and principles in the Constitution.
No. They haven't been. They may be being sold as defending our ideals but that isn't necessarily the case.
And they aren't just a fence. They are are a fence that needs to be supported and maintained. And to justify that support, they need to be used. We need to find things for them to do. People who have a financial interest in supporting a large army - contractors, suppliers, arms manufacturers etc. - have an interest in making sure that the army isn't just passively ready.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: My best guess is that we don't have moral obligations for any of those things, and that we don't have moral obligations to be soldiers either. I think our actual moral obligation is to take the gifts we personally have been given and use them to the best of our abilities to serve whatever we believe the greater good to be. Perhaps for some in some situations that may mean fighting in wars. For others it probably means entirely different professions.
Exactly what I've been trying to get at.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Directly our troops have been on foreign soil more times then I can count in my life time. Each one of the missions, failed or successful were about protecting the integrity of our nation, and in essence defending the ideals and principles in the Constitution.
And if you could how this is instead of jsut declaring it and other superficial platitudes, I might agree with you.
I doubt anyone here who has reda my posts in regards to our military thinks I do anything but support and honor our troops, but I don't believe in short-circuiting discussion of their role with superficial inanities.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Which Constitutional rights were those?
In addition, I wouldn't term that a "military action". Would you?
Segregation of schools was a violation of life liberty and the persuit of happiness. The government by stepping in and protecting the rights of minorities demonstrated its willingness to stand for the rights of all men should they find themselves in a minority group.
If you are talking about only "a military action" rather then the employment of our troops then you may be right that the armed forces have not protect my constitutional rights in my life time. I need to think about that for a bit.
Posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix (Member # 10094) on :
Did I say Iraq? I was referring to Afghanistan. That country was run by Al Qaeda. They funded and planed those attacks and now they are no longer in power. Iraq is a whole different issue. Iraq has other issues, and it is also an issue of being responsible for our own meddling.
There are reasons that are deep in every battle we have fought since the days George took his men with no boots through the snow. You just have to open your eyes long enough to look. Also stop trying to pick a fight, fighting over opinions is not productive at all.
The beautiful thing about opinions they are not right or wrong. While they can change they seem to grow stronger the harder they are hit, but they can flow when they are treated a bit softer.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:And because of the perceived obligation to go to college, many young men elsewhere likewise choose not to join. How is that any different? The point is: Here are these young men, who presumably support (by and large) the war in Iraq, who are choosing not to join up, in larger numbers than their counterparts elsewhere. Instead they go off to be missionaries. In other words, they consider missionary work more important than the military. In other places, people consider college more important. What is the difference?
Because the statistics used to demonstrate red Utah's "lack of support" were total numbers of veterens. In peace time are you arguing that if you support our military you should still become a veteran? We don't have numbers for how many people by state enlisted when our invasion of Iraq took place.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Segregation of schools was a violation of life liberty and the persuit of happiness.
Those aren't actually Constitutionally protected rights, you know. But they did protect the right to equal treatment before the law.
But again, I wasn't alive then and I don't consider that a military action as I said I was explicitly talking about.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Segregation of schools was a violation of life liberty and the persuit of happiness.
Those aren't actually Constitutionally protected rights, you know. But they did protect the right to equal treatment before the law.
But again, I wasn't alive then and I don't consider that a military action as I said I was explicitly talking about.
OK then how about the invasion of Afghanistan, a place where terrorists planned and executed attacks on Americans from?
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Which Constitutional rights were those?
In addition, I wouldn't term that a "military action". Would you?
Segregation of schools was a violation of life liberty and the persuit of happiness. The government by stepping in and protecting the rights of minorities demonstrated its willingness to stand for the rights of all men should they find themselves in a minority group.
If you are talking about only "a military action" rather then the employment of our troops then you may be right that the armed forces have not protect my constitutional rights in my life time. I need to think about that for a bit.
BlackBlade, the national guard is not the same (or at least should not be the same) as the standing army that is used for offensive action.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Which Constitutional rights were those?
In addition, I wouldn't term that a "military action". Would you?
Segregation of schools was a violation of life liberty and the persuit of happiness. The government by stepping in and protecting the rights of minorities demonstrated its willingness to stand for the rights of all men should they find themselves in a minority group.
If you are talking about only "a military action" rather then the employment of our troops then you may be right that the armed forces have not protect my constitutional rights in my life time. I need to think about that for a bit.
BlackBlade, the national guard is not the same (or at least should not be the same) as the standing army that is used for offensive action.
I understand this.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:ANY invading force that may or may not be out there. ANY entity that would have the balls to attack the US.
And if there isn't such an entity...?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Please understand I am saying, "This is what happened, this is the rationale used," not, "This is why what we did is right IMO."
I understand what you're saying. I don't think what you're saying means what you think it means.
quote: Again I never said, "Because we step on toes we need a big army, I said in effect, "The US steps on toes and because we do the country has opted for a large army." I'm NOT saying anything close to, "I agree or disagree."
If the country is not economically neutral I challenge you to find one that does not step on toes.
I don't think any country in the world is economically neutral. Every country makes trade agreements in what they feel is their best interest. It would be ludicrous to assume otherwise. What I said was no one else does it to the extent that we do. And everyone else does it without having a huge military force. I disagree with you that not being "economically neutral" has anything at all to do with having a large army. At least partly because I don't think economic neutrality exists.
quote:America's foreign policy would have to be drastically different for us to warrant a serious downsizing of the military.
And that is exactly what I'm advocating. I have no comment on if it would be a tough sell or not, that really doesn't have a bearing on my opinion.
Posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix (Member # 10094) on :
In how they use acts of terror to attempt to change our way of life, you might want to ask a terrorist. Though they have stated that again and again in the videos and tapes they used to claim the attacks. They target our financial institutions for two major reasons, high body count, and the lasting effects it has on our economy.
This is how they attack our way of life. Now we look over our shoulders when we get on a plane. My daughter knows what threat level orange means. They took something serious from us, so we took steps to insure they could not do it again.
By steering planes into a city they had hoped it would break our will, and they could turn NY into another Lebanon. With out soldiers what would we have done after that day?
If you do not think that soldiers protect your rights, and liberties, make measures to remove them and scale back, or totally eliminate the military. Take every soldier and put them back into the "real" world. Get rid of the carriers, tanks, and guns. When that is done, tell me how they defend your liberty directly or indirectly.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
How do you know there isn't? No one has declared war on us lately, but that doesn't mean there isn't anyone planning an attack.
Refer back to my many firefighter examples.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:OK then how about the invasion of Afghanistan, a place where terrorists planned and executed attacks on Americans from?
Did these groups have the capability to actually threaten our freedoms?
Please be aware I am not saying that the soldiers didn't do good things or prevent bad things from happening. I am talking about the claims made about soldiers fighting for our rights, etc.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
They took about 3000 peoples right to life.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix: Did I say Iraq? I was referring to Afghanistan. That country was run by Al Qaeda. They funded and planed those attacks and now they are no longer in power. Iraq is a whole different issue. Iraq has other issues, and it is also an issue of being responsible for our own meddling.
There are reasons that are deep in every battle we have fought since the days George took his men with no boots through the snow. You just have to open your eyes long enough to look. Also stop trying to pick a fight, fighting over opinions is not productive at all.
The beautiful thing about opinions they are not right or wrong. While they can change they seem to grow stronger the harder they are hit, but they can flow when they are treated a bit softer.
You said "each mission". I disagree. Lovely rhetoric about George Washington, but it simply isn't true. We send soldiers to war for a lot of reasons and many of those reasons are not noble at all. This isn't the fault of the soldiers. It is a problem with having a large military and with having the people who make decisions about the military benefit from having a large military.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: OK then how about the invasion of Afghanistan, a place where terrorists planned and executed attacks on Americans from? [/QB]
Are you not talking about Muhammed Atta, the known heroin smuggler who frequented Jack Abramoff's casino boat, and the other hijackers who trained at flight schools in the US?
I was talking about the difference between national guard and the army because it's not the traditional services of the national guard that are the ones with questionable Constitution-defending merit.
Posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix (Member # 10094) on :
I woudl call that a threat. I don't know if you travel but MrS, have you seen the lines at the airports? How you seen how few people travel outside of the US anymore? This is not just an inconvenience that we have to suffer through, its an admission of something deeper. We lost some of our freedom that day.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:They took about 3000 peoples right to life.
Is that in the Constitution? Is that a freedom?
edit:
The terrorists killed people. They can and most likely will kill other people. But they are lightyears away from the ability to do substantial damage to our country as a whole or institute some sort of totalitarian dictatorship.
A great deal more damage was done to our country and our freedoms by the reaction to these attacks, both by regular people but especially by our leaders. In the future, I expect the reaction of our leaders to this to be featured under the "What not to do when terrorists attack you" lessons, as they've played into their hands and done pretty much they wanted most steps along the way, resulting in them getting stronger and us getting weaker. And they did this, I believe, in large part because they did not think about things on a sufficiently complex level and instead relied on superficial ideas like the ones I'm decrying in this thread.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:We did not sell them nor were we willing to sell them to the same degree to Germany.
It's worth pointing out that, although the U-boats get all the publicity, the British blockade of Germany was tight. Anybody trying to import even food, never mind weapons, to Germany would have found his ship and goods impounded for the British war effort. The reason the U-boat war gets so much publicity is that it was a highly leaky sort of blockade, and therefore it was worth trying to fight your way through, leading to many highly dramatic and cinematic moments. A blockade so effective that nobody can be bothered trying to run is is just not very exciting.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: They took about 3000 peoples right to life.
Of course you must understand our Constitution doesn't protect you from being murdered by your neighbor either, just like it doesn't protect a building from an airplane. The Constitution, when functional, limits the government from infringing on your freedoms and allows it to enforce your rights against those who are infringing upon them. Just like how one murder doesn't bring the justice system tumbling down, the Constitution is not threatened directly by terror. Only when the government uses national security rationale to ok the violation of the rights protected in the Constitution is it threatened by terror. I've never seen that as the stated intent from any group even claiming responsibility for a terrorist act.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix: I woudl call that a threat. I don't know if you travel but MrS, have you seen the lines at the airports? How you seen how few people travel outside of the US anymore? This is not just an inconvenience that we have to suffer through, its an admission of something deeper. We lost some of our freedom that day.
Having a large military did not protect us from those attacks, did it? And lines at the airport is our own response to that attacks. Our military hasn't made us safer from terrorism. Our reliance on it has made us more vulnerable.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix: I woudl call that a threat. I don't know if you travel but MrS, have you seen the lines at the airports? How you seen how few people travel outside of the US anymore? This is not just an inconvenience that we have to suffer through, its an admission of something deeper. We lost some of our freedom that day.
No, by this example we lost our freedom when the government required such unconstitutional restrictions on our freedom to travel around within the country and when they severely limited our freedom to fly in or out of it, or for people to visit and spend their money here.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Did I say Iraq? I was referring to Afghanistan. That country was run by Al Qaeda.
No, it wasn't. It was run by the Taliban.
Could we stop simplisticly blurring all these groups into some sort of Axis of Evil?
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Ok. I am going to the hotel for the evening. It has been fun. I doubt I'll get in on this thread tomorrow. I'm at the agree to disagree point.
Have a good evening.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And the attackers on 9 11 were mostly Saudi not Afghani.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: Ok. I am going to the hotel for the evening. It has been fun. I doubt I'll get in on this thread tomorrow. I'm at the agree to disagree point.
Have a good evening.
I'll agree that I do disagree with you, but I still don't think you supported any of your points with any valid reasoning. No hard feelings though Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
As did I. I guess that's how it goes when two people fail to change the others opinion.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
It was more like I asked you a bunch of questions and you didn't answer them and said stuff about firefighters instead.
You didn't even say who was threatening us, what they want, or how they could possibly threaten our Constitution if we didn't have a standing offensive army.
Posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix (Member # 10094) on :
Did the Taliban support Al Qaeda? and vice versa? If you don't like the military, like I said you can lobby to have it dismantled. That is one of your rights as an American.
I didn't vote for Bush, but apparently a lot of Americans did. (Unless your from Florida). The office of the presidency needs to represent the voice of the people, even if we do not all agree. I do agree we lost some liberties because of government policy to protect us and recover from a foreign threat, but they woudl have never been able to do that if these extremist had not attacked us in the first place.
The point though you are making, is the same one that this thread was based on though. Being a soldier does not make you immoral, your choices do. You can be moral and be a solider.
You can be president and not be moral, but because the governing body is not always a moral compass, it does not make a soldier bad. An immoral act would be if a soldier willfully committed something he knew to be a crime, or if he followed what he knew to be an unlawful order.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:And because of the perceived obligation to go to college, many young men elsewhere likewise choose not to join. How is that any different? The point is: Here are these young men, who presumably support (by and large) the war in Iraq, who are choosing not to join up, in larger numbers than their counterparts elsewhere. Instead they go off to be missionaries. In other words, they consider missionary work more important than the military. In other places, people consider college more important. What is the difference?
Because the statistics used to demonstrate red Utah's "lack of support" were total numbers of veterens. In peace time are you arguing that if you support our military you should still become a veteran? We don't have numbers for how many people by state enlisted when our invasion of Iraq took place.
This is an entirely different argument; you are now attacking the statistics used (which is perfectly legitimate) rather than saying that missionary activity is a good reason not to join up.
Further touching the willingness to defend rights and freedoms: It occurs to me that this is not a characteristic especially of soldiers, but rather of American citizens, or citizens of Western democracies. Armies have been the chief instrument of repression for centuries; the reason the modern US army isn't is not that it's composed of soldiers - so were those others - but that the soldiers are also American citizens who love the Constitution. I would venture to guess that if the US army did lend itself to a coup, even those of you who haven't joined up would take to the streets and start fighting, precisely because you are willing to defend your rights and freedoms. (And I believe the situation is similar in other democracies; certainly I would fight the Norwegian army if that became necessary to safeguard our democracy - but since it's mainly conscripts of people who feel as I do, it is extremely unlikely that this will become necessary.)
So, if you accept this, what distinguishes the soldier is not his willingness to accept risk in defense of the Constitution - almost every American has that. Rather, it is a much expanded view of what things are threats to the Constitution. (I refer here to people who made a principled decision to join up, of course - there are presumably plenty of young lads who went in for the masculine satisfactions of risk and adventure. Nor do I necessarily condemn them.) Presumably, if, say, Icarus had thought Saddam was a threat to his freedom on the order of a military coup, he'd have joined up instantly. So what we have is not a difference in the willingness to risk one's life, but rather a difference in the appraisal of the threat. And this is not a moral issue, but an intellectual one where it is quite possible that the soldiers are simply mistaken.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
But I did answer you questions. We don't know who is out there. If anyone (other than Al Queda) is out there. That doesn't mean we don't need a military. My example of a firefighter was very clear. Don't wait until there is a fire to hire a firefighter.
Now your tone is starting to get to me, so good day.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM: I agree with all of that. Quite extraordinary considering your post was quite lengthy.
Posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix (Member # 10094) on :
Your point is your point Nato. You can start that in another thread if you like, but I am not going to justify the existence of a military force being a necessity for our country on a internet thread. Its kind of like have your child ask you why the sky is blue, and you tell them its from light refraction on the ambient gases, and they ask why light refracts.
This is discussion that is better served over coffee and conversation, with both parties having an open mind and willing to see the others point. Other wise it serves no purpose but to inflate our own bravado.
I think a military is important to defend a country. I think a good offense in the best defense. I think that we are not going to take the armies of the world off the board, and if we are going to have to have one, we might as well have the best. We can only make changes internally, and hope to make changes externally.
For all the experts on who was on the planes, who was running what countries stop looking for excuses to justify your anger. They were Al Qeada, they were no longer Saudi when they decided to fly into the towers. Al Qeada hid in Iraq, because the governing body, the Taliban, felt they were protecting their ideas, and they though they did a good thing.
This debate is not about if GW is a good moral compass, but it has detracted to that. I am not a fan of his, I am sorry you are so anger about the state of the world. Why don't you do something about it though, vote or run for office.
I was a soldier, I still think like a soldier and I think I have a strong sense of morality and patriotism. I know its my job to speak out when I think my government is not serving me, but the most I can do is vote, hope, and try to make sure my voice is heard.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hookt, what does the sky being blue have to do with anything?
I am going to assume that you just slipped got mixed up about Iraq and Afghanistan and that you really do know which is which.
Nobody here is saying that individual members of the military are immoral. Some of us are saying that the military is often used for less than noble reasons. I suggest that having a large military contributes to this. You haven't addressed this.
Posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix (Member # 10094) on :
Kmbboots read the initial part of this thread. That is what it is all about. The moral choice of being a soldier or rather how immoral it is to make that choice.
Posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix (Member # 10094) on :
What I am stating now, is that it has no relevance on the topic and would be better suited to be argued elsewhere. Their is no simple answer to the question posed by the "War on Terror". It has several layers that bring up numerous moral issues.
These are ones i do not choose discuss on this forum though. These are things, like I stated before, are better talked about face to face and over coffee, with two or more people willing to actually listen to each other.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It seemed to me that the conversation had moved past that. I was arguing with your statements - "each mission" being in support of our ideals, the military being necessary because of 9-11, and so forth - not defending the ideas of the person in the clip.
Posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix (Member # 10094) on :
Each mission does indeed start or root from our basic ideals, or the justify them through one idea or another. Other wise is it difficult to get soldiers to fight with intensity. Give me a mission that you think did not fit into this ideal, and I will let you knwo how it did. If it kept that intention is a whole other animal though. Prime example of course being Vietnam.
In Vietnam the public reason for going there was to stop communist influence and protect the interest of the US and its democratic allies in South East Asia.
That of course did not hold up until the end, and the war effort suffered for it. Corruption and immoral people surfaced through out the campaign so it was doomed by their deeds.
It started out for the right reasons though.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
"Support the troops" has been reduced to such empty pablum. It's scary.
But, all things considered, it's leagues better than the Vietnam era, where the troops were morally scapegoated for the ramifications of a horrid, unloveable war and the contempt of its runners.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: But I did answer you questions. We don't know who is out there. If anyone (other than Al Queda) is out there. That doesn't mean we don't need a military. My example of a firefighter was very clear. Don't wait until there is a fire to hire a firefighter.
Now your tone is starting to get to me, so good day.
I'm sorry that I annoyed you.
I understood what you were trying to say about the firefighter, but it doesn't relate to the topic at hand. The military was useless to prevent 9/11. It is similarly useless to quell the current insurgent problem in Iraq, and we aren't doing a very good job keeping Afghanistan peaceful (Especially not the Pakistani side, where we're threatening to throw a few bombs around). A military is useful for taking down a state government, as we saw in the first few weeks of the Iraq invasion, but it stopped working to defend our interests very well soon after.
With Chertoff's gut warning us of further attacks inside the country, how is our military protecting our freedoms, and specifically, how is it protecting our Constitution? As I mentioned before, individual terror attacks do nothing to directly threaten our Constitution. We certainly don't want them to happen, but deterring that is a matter of nonmilitary foreign policy and military solutions to them that occur post-event don't serve to protect the constitution (there is no way you could correctly infer that our military invasions have a real deterrent value on terrorists).
quote:Originally posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix: Your point is your point Nato. You can start that in another thread if you like, but I am not going to justify the existence of a military force being a necessity for our country on a internet thread. Its kind of like have your child ask you why the sky is blue, and you tell them its from light refraction on the ambient gases, and they ask why light refracts.
The number of questions I'm asking you is kinda like a kid, I guess, except that you have not answered my questions, the answers you give don't make sense and are totally wrong, and even if you assume all the mistakes are unintentional (assuming you actually know that it wasn't the Taliban who controlled Iraq), your posts are still wrong. You can't declare what the boundaries of what can be discussed in this thread are.
quote: This is discussion that is better served over coffee and conversation, with both parties having an open mind and willing to see the others point. Other wise it serves no purpose but to inflate our own bravado.
What? If you want to talk about an open mind, try considering answering something that you are asked. Try answering the first question I asked you in this thread, for example: "When has somebody "out there" forced their ideas on us? I've never had somebody else's idea forced on me." The danger you say the military protects us from doesn't exist, and the danger that does exist is completely the wrong kind to be addressed by a standing offensive military.
You say a good offense is the best defense, but the offense we have (projectable military strength) doesn't work to fight isolated cells of terrorists, and certainly didn't help stop 9/11 (especially when Rumsfeld refused to come out of his briefing to give the order to intercept the hijacked planes after he had specifically insisted that he personally would have to consent to such an order. If that's what our military has got, then it's useless to fight against any danger we might face.
quote:This debate is not about if GW is a good moral compass, but it has detracted to that. I am not a fan of his, I am sorry you are so anger about the state of the world. Why don't you do something about it though, vote or run for office.
This thread is not about dubya's moral compass. It has been mentioned, though, how our military under GW contributes to atrocities. The question posed early on is how culpable voluntary enlistees are for their complicity in these actions.
quote:I was a soldier, I still think like a soldier and I think I have a strong sense of morality and patriotism. I know its my job to speak out when I think my government is not serving me, but the most I can do is vote, hope, and try to make sure my voice is heard.
If the military you join is doing wrong, you can resist that wrong by refusing to be a part of it. If you are in the military and you are ordered to do something illegal, you must disobey that order, or you are culpable for it.
quote:Originally posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix: Kmbboots read the initial part of this thread. That is what it is all about. The moral choice of being a soldier or rather how immoral it is to make that choice.
You are confused about what was said in the first couple pages of this thread, and you still haven't addressed the issue KMB points out, the fact that our huge additions to the world military complex, (and I would include all our weapons sales to foreigners in this category) not only create danger for us, but also exacerbate the harm we cause when our military is used for wrong.
Posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix (Member # 10094) on :
Okay let me address the issues directly. In this world Military force has ALWAYS influenced external politics. Simply having a LARGE deployable well trained military, active or not, aids in diplomatic relations.
That is the way the world works, and has worked since we started building cities. It is a necessary evil to have a military. It is required to be taken seriously or be heard on the world stage.
Not only do you need to have a military, people have to know you are willing to use it.
9/11 was not prevented by our military, no, it happened, and what ever conspiracy theory you subscribe to surrounding those events it was beyond our means to prevent that one action.
Our soldiers and other institutions foil many other similar events, and we do not hear about them because they do not happen.
The attacks on Afghanistan was in response to that attack so the "enemy" knew the consequences of their actions. The Taliban and Al Qeada are in bed with each other, so attacking one effects the other.
You take away your enemies resources to prevent them from harming you, and in this case it was by force.
What else do you need to make this clear? I ma not trying to come off as hostile, and I apologize if I did, I just think this conversation is much deeper then this thread can accomplish with out writing a large paper and posting it, addressing the issues one by one, or having a conversation (hence the coffee reference).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix: Each mission does indeed start or root from our basic ideals, or the justify them through one idea or another. Other wise is it difficult to get soldiers to fight with intensity. Give me a mission that you think did not fit into this ideal, and I will let you knwo how it did.
I would say that, quite often, the military has bent sent to protect the financial interests of wealthy Americans or to expand US territory. I would not consider these intentions to be stemming from our basic ideals; I consider them to be contrary to our basic ideals.
The First Seminole War for example, or the Mexican American War for example. The invasion of Hawaii in the 1890s. Much of our involvement in South America.
Could be we jsut disagree about what our basic ideals are or should be.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix: Okay let me address the issues directly. In this world Military force has ALWAYS influenced external politics. Simply having a LARGE deployable well trained military, active or not, aids in diplomatic relations.
Of course there is influence. Are you trying to say the military's presence has a deterrent value against terrorism though? As we can see from the current Iraq situation, that is not correct.
quote: 9/11 was not prevented by our military, no, it happened, and what ever conspiracy theory you subscribe to surrounding those events it was beyond our means to prevent that one action.
Except that if Rumsfeld hadn't insisted on needing to give an order to scramble intercepting jets in person and hadn't insisted on staying in a briefing for 45 minutes, it could have been stopped. He was the head of the military at the time too.
quote:
Our soldiers and other institutions foil many other similar events, and we do not hear about them because they do not happen.
We hear a lot about "inspecific" threats that are from "credible but unnamed sources" that are foiled, but we don't have any more details about this.
quote:The attacks on Afghanistan was in response to that attack so the "enemy" knew the consequences of their actions. The Taliban and Al Qeada are in bed with each other, so attacking one effects the other.
You take away your enemies resources to prevent them from harming you, and in this case it was by force.
What else do you need to make this clear? I ma not trying to come off as hostile, and I apologize if I did, I just think this conversation is much deeper then this thread can accomplish with out writing a large paper and posting it, addressing the issues one by one, or having a conversation (hence the coffee reference).
Bush originally sought authority to wage war in the whole region of the middle east, not just Afghanistan and Iraq (this is a revelation from recent days, I think from senator Biden). This war was not the war we were told it was at any point, and the Iraq "front in the global struggle against terror" has been the same case.
I'm not saying our military action in Afghanistan didn't affect Al Quada, I'm saying it didn't deter them. The terrorist threat is assessed as higher today than before our war against Afghanistan and Iraq. The military did not help protect us from the terrorist threat in this case. Our war fuels terror.
I'm not offended by what you posted, I just think you're misinformed.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Try answering the first question I asked you in this thread, for example: "When has somebody "out there" forced their ideas on us?
I can think of several examples of it being attempted, and one where it arguably succeeded. To wit:
Revolutionary war: Britain thought you ought to pay taxes. War of 1812: Britain thought you ought not to shelter deserters from its Navy. And since the war ended in a draw, they arguably won their point - there was nothing in the peace treaty about search and seizure. Civil War: The South thought they ought to be allowed to have slaves, and to secede. The North disagreed. Pick your choice of who imposed what on whom. World War II: Had Germany won, they would certainly have imposed some quite nasty ideas on all the world. Cold War: Same again.
In each of these there was an attempt to impose ideas from outside. Right now, if the mullahs had the power, they would impose sharia law. (And some Christians internal to the country are attempting something rather similar, but that's another issue and anyway not something the military can very well deal with.)
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix: Our soldiers and other institutions foil many other similar events, and we do not hear about them because they do not happen.
All of the other potential terrorist attacks that have been reported on have been foiled by police action, not military action. The CIA, FBI, and local police departments seem to be doing quite well at preventing another major attack. Which is great, and is their job. The military seems to have had very little to do with it, which makes sense, because it's not their job. But that means you can't really use that as an argument for a large military.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Try answering the first question I asked you in this thread, for example: "When has somebody "out there" forced their ideas on us?
I can think of several examples of it being attempted, and one where it arguably succeeded. To wit:
Revolutionary war: Britain thought you ought to pay taxes. War of 1812: Britain thought you ought not to shelter deserters from its Navy. And since the war ended in a draw, they arguably won their point - there was nothing in the peace treaty about search and seizure. Civil War: The South thought they ought to be allowed to have slaves, and to secede. The North disagreed. Pick your choice of who imposed what on whom. World War II: Had Germany won, they would certainly have imposed some quite nasty ideas on all the world. Cold War: Same again.
In each of these there was an attempt to impose ideas from outside. Right now, if the mullahs had the power, they would impose sharia law. (And some Christians internal to the country are attempting something rather similar, but that's another issue and anyway not something the military can very well deal with.)
All those threats were dealt with without a standing offensive army existing beforehand. (Except for the Cold War, but I would argue the Cold War happened because of the arms race, not the other way around)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, that's a reasonable point, but recall that America was a lot more isolated in the days when traveling across the Atlantic took a month. Further, the Indians, Mexicans and Spanish might disagree with your assertion that there was no offensive army.
Finally, the Cold War being caused by the arms race is just ridiculous. What were you supposed to do, hand Western Europe over to the Soviets to complete their collection?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Also, consider what might have happened in the Civil War if either the North or the South had had a large standing army lying around waiting to be used - say, if one of the state militias had been well trained and equipped, as opposed to the boondoggles they were.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
Finally, the Cold War being caused by the arms race is just ridiculous. What were you supposed to do, hand Western Europe over to the Soviets to complete their collection?
Well, the pacifists would just say that life is essentially tragic.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Well, the pacifists would just say that life is essentially tragic.
I doubt it.
Posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix (Member # 10094) on :
I would love nothing more then to be a pacifist, but I see it as being unrealistic and isolationistic. Yes it worked for Ghandi, and Dr. King, on several issues, but that was the diplomacy part of it.
Until people stop thinking that a fist can solve problems you have to be prepared to deal with the fist. This just feeds that fire and creates more fist. So we will have fist until every body agrees to put them down.
To think that if we put down our fist we will not have to deal with those that use theirs puts us in a fantasy world. It would be great, but its not very real.
I want to be a pacifist, but I also have no desire to be a punching bag, or push over. So for now I am a pass-a-fist.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
And Martin Luther King, Jr. hinted that if white people didn't listen to his demands, other people would make more violent ones:
quote:I began thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self-respect and a sense of "somebodiness" that they have adjusted to segregation; and in part of a few middle class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best-known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. Nourished by the Negro's frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible "devil."
I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the "do-nothingism" of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle.
If this philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble-rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black-nationalist ideologies a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare.
Malcolm X recognized this same principle when he said, "I want Dr. King to know that I didn't come to Selma to make his job difficult. I really did come thinking I could make it easier. If the white people realize what the alternative is, perhaps they will be more willing to hear Dr. King."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix:
Until people stop thinking that a fist can solve problems you have to be prepared to deal with the fist. This just feeds that fire and creates more fist. So we will have fist until every body agrees to put them down.
The problem with that is that because we have such a fantastic "fist" we see that fist as the solution to all of our problems. Even when it really isn't. And, as I have said before, we sometimes even make problems to justify having such a grossly oversized fist.
Posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix (Member # 10094) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The problem with that is that because we have such a fantastic "fist" we see that fist as the solution to all of our problems. Even when it really isn't. And, as I have said before, we sometimes even make problems to justify having such a grossly oversized fist.
I agree in part, but we also have to go on faith that our system of government works. With that in mind the majority have elect people to represent them that agree with that philosophy. So it would be safe to assume that it woudl be the will of the people to build, maintain, and use that fist.
Until AMERICA as a whole can shift that majority it will be business as usual for our country. Most people just need to be shown another way that works, but until then, they will stay with what they know works.
Most people are firmly grounded in reality. Because of this they do not trust the dreams until they can see them, or touch them. It is human nature to follow the crowd, and stay with what you know.
Ever so often though you get people that break that mold. We can hope that some day, soon I hope, that some like that comes along and shows the majority a way they can understand and get behind. They will also need to have a voice loud enough to be heard.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And part of the problem (which I have also said) is that there is a lot of money involved in keeping that fist larger than it needs to be. Oftentimes the people making the decision whether or not to use that fist are the ones profiting from it.
Posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix (Member # 10094) on :
Well people need the motivation to keep that fist going, and in human nature the two easiest emotions to manipulate people into doing what you want are fear and greed. Until that changes as well, status quo. So we either learn to live with it, thrive in it, or find a way to change it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I pick option #3. I can't tell which of the first two you are picking.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix: How you seen how few people travel outside of the US anymore?
I am of the opinion that this is much more due to the weak dollar than "OMG, Thar Be Terrorists!"
-Bok
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The problem with that is that because we have such a fantastic "fist" we see that fist as the solution to all of our problems. Even when it really isn't. And, as I have said before, we sometimes even make problems to justify having such a grossly oversized fist.
and these problems multiply further when we sell tons and tons of weapons to disreputable people. (Even when we sell weapons to reputable people, they begin to feel the effects kmb pointed out here) Our weapons industry is our biggest and most profitable manufacturing industry. When the arms solution is the best one you have, you tend to see it as a solution to lots of problems that really should be dealt with in other ways (that we would have better capability to enact if we didn't spend so much money making weapons)
quote:Originally posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix: I agree in part, but we also have to go on faith that our system of government works.
Why? Who says that the system we have right now is inherently the best and that it works? Do you not think that the mere fact that we have a president who is so unpopular that most of the country wants him impeached is evidence that our system is not working at 100%? Do you not think it's wrong to make every presidential election choice based on who you think is less horrible? We could do better than our current system. If you want to argue that our current system is the best and we should trust it, present some evidence to that end. We have ended up with a president who wants to start wars all over so the military-industrial-prison complex can make a ton of money, and his plan is working out great, except that we're going into incredible amounts of debt to pay for all those weapons, because there's no way Bush could get the American people to pay for all of the military expenditure through taxes. Despite a vote last November that almost everybody interpreted as a rebuke on Bush's warmongering policies, we have a Congress that just passed the biggest defense budget the world has ever seen.... You really think that we just need to trust "the system"?
quote:With that in mind the majority have elect people to represent them that agree with that philosophy. So it would be safe to assume that it woudl be the will of the people to build, maintain, and use that fist.
I see your point, except it does rely on the very shaky assumption that you have to have faith that the two-party system we have here can correctly identify the leaders the people want most, and it doesn't. I think that most of the people in this country realize that we're not going to stop terrorism until we stop invading other countries.
quote:Until AMERICA as a whole can shift that majority it will be business as usual for our country. Most people just need to be shown another way that works, but until then, they will stay with what they know works.
they will stay with a method that absolutely does not work. Our military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan and our constant military and monetary support of Israel have increased the spectre of terrorism. This DOES NOT WORK TO REDUCE THE PROBLEMS WE ARE FACING.
quote:Most people are firmly grounded in reality. Because of this they do not trust the dreams until they can see them, or touch them. It is human nature to follow the crowd, and stay with what you know.
What is the reality of a military-industrial complex run wild? I don't think many people at all have truly come to terms with what the manufacture of all these weapons is doing to the world. Most of the people who vote to support defense funding have never been in a war zone to see the reality that their chosen policy creates. I admit that I've only seen pictures and news of war zones myself, but they look bad enough to me. Most people are firmly grounded in whatever story of reality makes the most sense to them. There is no way for a human to actually be firmly grounded in reality, because culture and the brain itself creates layers of separation. This is a little epistemological, but I think it is true that the human brain loves to ground itself in a mythology that is coherent. Humans feel a need to know their origins, their "purpose", for example. This involves constructing a story (or assimilating one from culture) that makes sense to them. You can see this need in the fact that all cultures around the world have some sort of "creation myth". Even our own scientific community roots its practice in a set of stories of how things work. Nobody truly thinks we truly understand the workings of the tiny atom, we can just create stories about how they work that are workable enough that we can predict what happens when we split atoms. You've subscribed to a story of a dangerous world out there where you need a big fist to protect yourself from whatever's out there. I think the problem with that is that when a bunch of people subscribe to that story, they make a lot of fists, they see fists as the solution to their problems, and they consequently use fists to get what they want.
quote:Ever so often though you get people that break that mold. We can hope that some day, soon I hope, that some like that comes along and shows the majority a way they can understand and get behind. They will also need to have a voice loud enough to be heard.
Yes, we do need a new story, so we can move to a higher level of civilization. The problem is that people are still clinging to the story that we have to trust the current version of our system to sort everything out, and our system needs some serious repairs if it's actually going to do the job. If our system were perfect, I highly doubt that a very rich person, who represents the top 1% or fewer of Americans would ever become president, and yet, that's all we have currently. The current stories are flawed. People fool themselves into keeping with them because they are "true", they are "reality", but they are not.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:We have ended up with a president who wants to start wars all over so the military-industrial-prison complex can make a ton of money
Now, now. It's true that Bush has started wars, and it's true that this makes a lot of money for military suppliers, but you don't know that this was his actual motivation for starting those wars. Unless, of course, you have 1337 midreading skillz that I don't know about.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
KOM already took care of the first statement I wanted to respond to.
quote:Do you not think that the mere fact that we have a president who is so unpopular that most of the country wants him impeached is evidence that our system is not working at 100%?
Oh this is fact huh? I was not aware that the MAJORITY of the country wants Bush imeached. The US out of Iraq yes, impeach Bush no.
Pulling statistics out of thin air or your posterior undermines your credibility.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
You give an astounding amount of credit to an administration that has shown the world some serious nepotism and cronyism.
Now if you happen to remember the news from September 10th, 2001, you might recall that there were two huge stories that day. The military had misplaced 2.3 trillion dollars (With a T): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kpWqdPMjmo
The other story was about Ken Lay's connections to Bush and how energry corp. exec's had met with Cheney to decide energy policy.
quote:(From the cronyism list above:) James Baker: Iraq Debt Envoy
BUSH appoints James Baker as Iraq debt envoy. Baker is senior counselor to the Carlyle Group, a global investment company that has done business with the Saudi royal family. He is also a partner in Baker Botts, a Houston law firm whose client list includes Halliburton and the Saudi Royal family. Mr. Baker's law firm will most likely represent the Saudi Royals in the suit against them filed by the 9-11 victims families Vice-president Dick Cheney, who chairs the White House Energy Policy Development Group, commissioned a report on ''energy security'' from the Baker Institute for Public Policy, a think-tank set up by James Baker. Baker who delivered the recommendations to Cheney, was advised by Kenneth Lay, the disgraced former chief executive of Enron. The other advisers to Baker were: Luis Giusti, a Shell non-executive director; John Manzoni, regional president of BP and David O'Reilly, chief executive of ChevronTexaco.
If Bush's purpose weren't to help his friends get a lot of money and help decide the country's policy to their benefit, then he was very successful at it accidentally.
Posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix (Member # 10094) on :
Bush does have a low approval rating, but that does not mean that the majority of the population wants him impeached. I do not like him, and I am a republican. I do not like a lot of things that have come out of his regime.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: KOM already took care of the first statement I wanted to respond to.
quote:Do you not think that the mere fact that we have a president who is so unpopular that most of the country wants him impeached is evidence that our system is not working at 100%?
Oh this is fact huh? I was not aware that the MAJORITY of the country wants Bush imeached. The US out of Iraq yes, impeach Bush no.
Pulling statistics out of thin air or your posterior undermines your credibility.
Jan. 5, 2006: MyDD launches effort inspired by ours to raise money for polls. Dec. 22, 2005: Newsweek acknowledges demand for impeachment polling. Dec. 20, 2005: The Washington Post's polling editor is furious that people want impeachment polling. Dec. 14, 2005: We've purchased our third poll! READ THE RESULTS.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: KOM already took care of the first statement I wanted to respond to.
quote:Do you not think that the mere fact that we have a president who is so unpopular that most of the country wants him impeached is evidence that our system is not working at 100%?
Oh this is fact huh? I was not aware that the MAJORITY of the country wants Bush imeached. The US out of Iraq yes, impeach Bush no.
Pulling statistics out of thin air or your posterior undermines your credibility.
OK none of those polls indicate that a majority of the country wants to impeach Bush.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
Honestly, dude, impeachment is about the acts Bush/Cheney committed, not about what polls say. The polls do indicate that an incredible number of people want to initiate impeachment proceedings. those proceedings should be started based on the desires of this large group of Americans, and those proceedings should focus not on the opinions of Americans, but on the actions of the Bush Administration at least on counts of lying to start the Iraq war and illegally wiretapping Americans.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato: Honestly, dude, impeachment is about the acts Bush/Cheney committed, not about what polls say. The polls do indicate that an incredible number of people want to initiate impeachment proceedings. those proceedings should be started based on the desires of this large group of Americans, and those proceedings should focus not on the opinions of Americans, but on the actions of the Bush Administration at least on counts of lying to start the Iraq war and illegally wiretapping Americans.
Fine, but your orginal statement was a brash sweeping statement that the majority of the country wants Bush impeached.
I bet if you polled the Senate there would be a MUCH lower percentage of senators who think Bush should be impeached. I expect a significantly higher percentage in the House but not anything that matches the national average.
edit: Should such proceedings commence, I would not expect them to find sufficient grounds to impeach Bush.
doubt edit: and it is NOT about what Bush/Cheney did. They are not a single entity, they are seperate individuals. If impeachment procedings occured both efforts would operate independantly of each other.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
What the hell?
All you are saying is that the Congress doesn't proportionally support the will of Americans. We knew this already. Nevertheless, they should begin impeachment proceedings, based on the wishes of this large group of Americans, and those proceedings should examine the acts of Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld in lying to start the war in Iraq.
Edit:
Here's one list of offenses, compiled by somebody who calls himself "Son of a Bush" I guess:
quote:Compiled by "Son of a Bush"
1) The now famous Downing Street Memo, along with the testimony of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil constitute direct evidence of a decision by Bush to invade a sovereign foreign nation on entirely specious grounds.
2) The decision to deploy chemical weapons in Fallujah came from Rumsfeld who no doubt covered his ass by receiving assent from Bush to use these banned weapons
3) The decision by Bush to dig up dirt on UN diplomats when the General Assembly was considering his ill-fated war resolution
4) Authorizing torture of POW's - a direct violation of the protocols of the Geneva Convention
5) Holding so called "non-combatant civilians" for an indefinite period of time ,depriving them of their day in court ,acess to counsel, and acess to family members who could plead their cause to the public.
6) Kidnapping so called "terror suspects" , placing them on Rendition Airways, and sending them to countries like Uzbekistan who boil these ,untried,unconvicted people alive.
7) foreknowledge of 9/11 by Bush, Rice, and the top Neocons at the Pentagon . The only ones warned were Fmr. SF. Mayor Willie Brown, Salman Rushdie (Via Scotland Yard) and Ariel Sharon, who cancelled his trip to NYC scheduled for the weekend prior to 9/11.
8) Engaging in a massive voter suppression campaign in the state of Ohio to secure a second term by fraudulent means. Such activities carry criminal sanctions as outlined in the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
9) Covering up the involvement of Mossad in 9/11. The fellow that secreted these spies and explosives experts out of country and back into Israel , Michael Chertoff, was promoted from Criminal Division of the Justice Dept to lead the Dept. of Homeland Security.!
10) The attempt to quash the testimony of Sibel Edmonds using the bogus shield of the States Secret Act.
11) Engaging in a sytematic campaign of depriving political dissidents of their 1st ammendment rights to condem Bush administration policy. Protesters are removed out of crowds and summarily placed in jail. The Secret Service, under orders of the President, conduct "Harassment and intimidation Interviews" of anti -Bush political activists.
12) Conspiring with Ken Lay to rip-off the the people of California by creating false energy shortages,thus creating the causus belli for charging energy consumers illegal, confiscatory rates. 13) Conspiring to rig the vote count in the state of Fl. by hacking optical scan machines and E-voting machines and covering up the latter by passing legislation in the state of Fl to prevent post-election examination of E-voting machines.
14) Illegally transferring $700 million from the budget for the war in Afghanistan for war preparations in Iraq in July 2002, without Congressional Approval. This is a Constitutional violation.
15) The "outing" of CIA operative Valerie Plame.
This info is what I can recover off the top of my head. Clearly an impeachment inquiry by the US House Judiciary Committeee is an action clearly overdue. Some of the allegations are violations of international law. They fall under the impeachment clause as well . An additional action of filing criminal referral to the UN War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague is also an absolute must if the United States wants to gain the esteem of the citizens of the entire world.
All of these should be investigated in impeachment proceedings, and if not enough merit is found in them to impeach BushCo, then we will have to wait till the elections.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:All you are saying is that the Congress doesn't proportionally support the will of Americans. We knew this already. Nevertheless, they should begin impeachment proceedings, based on the wishes of this large group of Americans, and those proceedings should examine the acts of Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rumsfeld in lying to start the war in Iraq.
Ignoring your constant reference to Bush lying, if 45% of the country wants Bush impeached, have them get their congressmen to start proceedings. They will inevitably be defeated by the lack of a super majority in the senate, even if they some how get a simple majority in the house. If your purpose is to merely censure Bush you COULD possibly get your desires, but beyond that you would accomplish nothing.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Ignoring your constant reference to Bush lying, if 45% of the country wants Bush impeached, have them get their congressmen to start proceedings. They will inevitably be defeated by the lack of a super majority in the senate, even if they some how get a simple majority in the house. If your purpose is to merely censure Bush you COULD possibly get your desires, but beyond that you would accomplish nothing.
Don't worry. We're working on it. Did you see the protests in Conyers' office recently? He still seems to think impeachment is off the table, but if only a few more people cosponsor the motion to impeach Cheney, we can get started on that one, most likely.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
As for your edit, that list is a laughably ridiculous attempt to paint as horrible a picture of Bush as possible. It's the sort of list a yellow journalist would use in the hopes that at least ONE of those points might stick, or that people would think, "Surely one of so many slanderous statements must be true!"
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
Do you say that Bush and company didn't lie to start the Iraq war?
I don't understand the desire to have Bush impeached at this point. He's only in for, what, 18 more months?
Do you really want a fresh new Incumbent republican in the next election?
Impeaching Bush now makes about as much sense as the Clinton impeachment.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I bet if you polled the Senate there would be a MUCH lower percentage of senators who think Bush should be impeached. I expect a significantly higher percentage in the House but not anything that matches the national average.
edit: Should such proceedings commence, I would not expect them to find sufficient grounds to impeach Bush.
This is what our Senators think the people want. This is how they want to protect your children instead of ending Bush's disastrous presidency. Thanks, Senators!
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I don't understand the desire to have Bush impeached at this point. He's only in for, what, 18 more months?
Do you really want a fresh new Incumbent republican in the next election?
Impeaching Bush now makes about as much sense as the Clinton impeachment.
When the Supreme Court decided to end the recount of the 2000 election before I was satisfied that the correct result was obtained, I wasn't too worried. I thought, "what's the worst that he could do?" Gore didn't seem that much better to me anyway, and I was too young to vote at the time in any case.
The reason we should impeach Bush is so that we don't have criminals running our government and representing us to the world any longer. Bush should not speak for America, creating further danger of war around the world, specifically with our carrier groups in the Persian gulf risking a crisis with Iran.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato: Do you say that Bush and company didn't lie to start the Iraq war?
OK, so your link says nothing about whether Bush actualy believed the documents to be forgeries. It does mention that Dick Cheney said one of the major sceptics of the documents was wrong. Nobody can argue that the US went to Iraq based on bad inteligence, but I do not believe the evidence suggests that Bush himself knew that his inteligence was bad and instead chose to lie in order to get troops into Iraq.
Trying to assign sinister motives where they do not exist is one of the most odious lies that can be concocted.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
There was no credible evidence of WMD in Iraq, yet Bush sold us his war based on that claim. If you don't think the yellowcake forgeries were known forgeries, you should do more research into it.
You claim that the president didn't believe the CIA when it reported the documents were inaccurate?
The classified documents appearing to depict an Iraqi attempt to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger had allegedly been suspected to be fraudulent by some individuals in U.S. intelligence, according to news reports. According to further news accounts of the situation, by early 2002 investigations by both the CIA and the State Department had found the documents to be inaccurate. Days before the Iraq invasion, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voiced doubt on the authenticity of the documents to the U.N. Security Council. A Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigation into the origin of these documents has been reopened.
I'll talk to you folks later.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato: There was no credible evidence of WMD in Iraq, yet Bush sold us his war based on that claim. If you don't think the yellowcake forgeries were known forgeries, you should do more research into it.
You claim that the president didn't believe the CIA when it reported the documents were inaccurate?
The classified documents appearing to depict an Iraqi attempt to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger had allegedly been suspected to be fraudulent by some individuals in U.S. intelligence, according to news reports. According to further news accounts of the situation, by early 2002 investigations by both the CIA and the State Department had found the documents to be inaccurate. Days before the Iraq invasion, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) voiced doubt on the authenticity of the documents to the U.N. Security Council. A Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) investigation into the origin of these documents has been reopened.
I'll talk to you folks later.
Some folks in the CIA being skeptical does not mean the president was privy to those doubts. Even if he was, that does not tell us how the information was presented to him personally.
edit: Perhaps an investigation will turn up evidence that President Bush knew full well there were likely no WMDs in Iraq. But as it stands that has never been shown and hence affirmative statements that he lied to sell the war to the American people is itself a lie.
[ July 26, 2007, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix (Member # 10094) on :
And we didn't land on the moon either. Conspiracies are conspiracies. I prefer to think in more simple terms, and do not dig to justify my existence. I can chalk it all up to people being greedy, not as smart as they should be, and their ambition overrides their sensibilities. They do the things they can get away with until they get caught.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix: And we didn't land on the moon either. Conspiracies are conspiracies.
What do you mean by this?
quote: I prefer to think in more simple terms, and do not dig to justify my existence. I can chalk it all up to people being greedy, not as smart as they should be, and their ambition overrides their sensibilities. They do the things they can get away with until they get caught.
I assume this is in response to my statement that people generally try to assign events stories that describe or rationalize them. You may prefer to think in simpler terms, but saying "I can chalk it all up to people being greedy, not as smart as they should be..." is in fact the story you imagine as the reality of this situation.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Some folks in the CIA being skeptical does not mean the president was privy to those doubts. Even if he was, that does not tell us how the information was presented to him personally.
edit: Perhaps an investigation will turn up evidence that President Bush knew full well there were likely no WMDs in Iraq. But as it stands that has never been shown and hence affirmative statements that he lied to sell the war to the American people is itself a lie.
Reading further down on the Wikipedia page:
quote:US doubts
Previously, in February 2002, three different American officials had made efforts to verify the reports. The deputy commander of U.S. Armed Forces Europe, Marine Gen. Carlton Fulford, went to Niger and met with the country's president, Tandja Mamadou. He concluded that, given the controls on Niger's uranium supply, there was little chance any of it could have been diverted to Iraq. His report was sent to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers. The U.S. Ambassador to Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, was also present at the meeting and sent similar conclusions to the State Department [2]. CNN reported on 14 March 2003 (before invasion) that the International Atomic Energy Agency found the documents to be forged [3].
[edit] Wilson and Niger
In late February of 2002, the CIA sent Ambassador Joseph Wilson to investigate the claims himself. Wilson had been posted to Niger 14 years earlier, and throughout a diplomatic career in Africa he had built up a large network of contacts in Niger. Wilson interviewed former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, who reported that he knew of no attempted sales to Iraq. Mayaki did however recall that in June 1999 an Iraqi delegation had expressed interest in "expanding commercial relations", which he had interpreted to mean yellowcake sales.[4]
Ultimately, Wilson concluded that there was no way that production at the uranium mines could be ramped up or that the excess uranium could have been exported without it being immediately obvious to many people both in the private sector and in the government of Niger. He returned home and told the CIA that the reports were "unequivocally wrong."[5] The CIA retained this information in its Counter Proliferation Department and it was not passed up to the CIA Director, according to the unanimous findings of the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee's July 2004 report.
...
CIA doubts
In early October 2002, George Tenet called Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley to ask him to remove reference to the Niger uranium from a speech Bush was to give in Cincinnati on October 7. This was followed up by a memo asking Hadley to remove another, similar line. Another memo was sent to the White House expressing the CIA's view that the Niger claims were false; this memo was given to both Hadley and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.[citation needed]
IAEA analysis
Further, in March 2003, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released results of his analysis of the documents. Reportedly, it took IAEA officials only a matter of hours to determine that these documents were fake. Using little more than a Google search, IAEA experts discovered indications of a crude forgery, such as the use of incorrect names of Nigerian officials. As a result, the IAEA reported to the U.N. Security Council that the documents were "in fact not authentic."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I am very glad to see a lot of text devoted to the subject but then I started thinking -- isn't this one of those 'locked' subjects? Anyone who doesn't yet believe that the administration lied, most likely won't ever.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
My dad says things in very much the same way BlackBlade was, at least the last time I talked with him. We can't know exactly what Bush was thinking, we can only examine him from an external perspective without the benefit of all the information Rove will resist giving to Congress, despite the subpoena.
I don't know whether more people will come to believe Bush lied specifically to lead us into this war. I do think that many people have tried to shield themselves from the evidence. Most people certainly don't go seeking this information out.
I see the worst president in United States history going wild all over the globe, giving away taxpayer money wastefully in no-bid contracts to his friends and talking up the terrorist threat to justify it.
It is obvious that Bush didn't tell the truth about Iraqi WMD's, although BlackBlade is right that it is much harder to show intent to deceive.
The information from the yellowcake forgeries didn't come through the CIA, but from the Pentagon, from the Office of Special Plans. This was Cheney's pet independent intelligence agency headed by Wolfowitz and Feith. The OSP's only function was to funnel intelligence to the White House that indicated Iraq was a threat. Rumsfeld said its function was to "search for information on Iraq's hostile intentions or links to terrorists.” The OSP was not using information from the CIA. Their main source was a bank embezzler Ahmed Chalabi, who was known to be unreliable. He's the guy who said they "will welcome you with open arms."
quote:from The Nation According to the former official, also feeding information to the Office of Special Plans was a secret, rump unit established last year in the office of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel. This unit, which paralleled Shulsky's--and which has not previously been reported--prepared intelligence reports on Iraq in English (not Hebrew) and forwarded them to the Office of Special Plans. It was created in Sharon's office, not inside Israel's Mossad intelligence service, because the Mossad--which prides itself on extreme professionalism--had views closer to the CIA's, not the Pentagon's, on Iraq. This secretive unit, and not the Mossad, may well have been the source of the forged documents purporting to show that Iraq tried to purchase yellowcake uranium for weapons from Niger in West Africa, according to the former official.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0807-02.htm this page says that Israeli army officers, up to the rank of general were escorted in and out of the OSP without signing in (as post 9/11 security regulations required).
From this page: "Mr Feith's cell undermined the credibility of CIA judgments on Iraq's alleged al-Qa'eda links within the highest levels of the Bush administration. "
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Anyone who doesn't yet believe that the administration lied, most likely won't ever.
Does this work both ways? I'm willing to believe Bush lied, but not until it is shown to be true.
I hate the fact that people take Bush's acting too hastily, brashly, carelessly, ineffectively, pointlessly, and the obviously specious and amateur workings of the inteligence community and the churlish actions of those people in the aftermath and try to combine it all together while adding, "He also lied to us from the beginning!"
Bush can be a terrible president, but I don't have to believe that his intent is also bad.
Bush can be ineffective even criminally so without being dishonest.
Apparently some people refuse to see the distinction. I don't mind being wrong on this, but I do mind people pretending to know something nobody besides Bush and his close aids know. Seeing as how none of them have answered this question it's ridiculous to pretend we have conclusive inside information .
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I don't mind being wrong on this, but I do mind people pretending to know something nobody besides Bush and his close aids know. Seeing as how none of them have answered this question it's ridiculous to pretend we have conclusive inside information .
So the only way you'll believe Bush lied is if Bush tells you he did?
How is anybody ever supposed to find out anything then?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I don't mind being wrong on this, but I do mind people pretending to know something nobody besides Bush and his close aids know. Seeing as how none of them have answered this question it's ridiculous to pretend we have conclusive inside information .
So the only way you'll believe Bush lied is if Bush tells you he did?
How is anybody ever supposed to find out anything then?
Oh give me a break. The documentation that Bush was privy to is available. The people who briefed him can all be called to testify. I bet recordings of those briefings exist as well as recordings of Bush referencing his own knowledge of WMDs in Iraq. Those very things were used in the Clinton investigation as well as Nixon's investigation.
But let me guess, Bush is using his illegal wire tap program to keep anybody from exposing the truth huh?
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
So what do you think of Bush's recent position that anyone in his administration (or anyone who has worked in his administration previously) is immune to Congressional subpoena?
Do you think that Miers and Rove should have to testify?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato: So what do you think of Bush's recent position that anyone in his administration (or anyone who has worked in his administration previously) is immune to Congressional subpoena?
Do you think that Miers and Rove should have to testify?
I don't know the details of this, and it sounds very complex. I certainly would not support a position where congress would be totally unable to subpoena folks in the executive branch. If such a stance was made I would hope the Supreme Court would stomp on it.
But again, I don't know much on this matter; until I do I can't give a very specific answer.
But even if what you said is true that is not even close to the nail in the coffin in regards to claims that Bush lied about WMDs.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
Here's a little information for you in roughly reverse-chronological order.
quote:White House refuses to answer subpoenasWASHINGTON - President Bush, moving toward a constitutional showdown with Congress, asserted executive privilege Thursday and rejected lawmakers' demands for documents that could shed light on the firings of federal prosecutors.
Bush's attorney told Congress the White House would not turn over subpoenaed documents for former presidential counsel Harriet Miers and former political director Sara Taylor. Congressional panels want the documents for their investigations of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' stewardship of the Justice Department, including complaints of undue political influence.
The Democratic chairmen of the two committees seeking the documents accused Bush of stonewalling and disdain for the law, and said they would press forward with enforcing the subpoenas.
quote:Cheney, others served with subpoenas by wiretapping investigators The Senate Judiciary Committee has served Vice President Dick Cheney and other officials in the White House and Justice Department with subpoenas over President George W. Bush's warrantless wiretapping programs.
"Over the past 18 months, this Committee has made no fewer than nine formal requests to the Department of Justice and to the White House, seeking information and documents about the authorization of and legal justification for this program," Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement released to RAW STORY. "All requests have been rebuffed. Our attempts to obtain information through testimony of Administration witnesses have been met with a consistent pattern of evasion and misdirection."
I hope the Supreme Court stomps on this too, but who knows whether that will happen or not. If the Supreme Court does not exercise their responsibility to ensure that the Executive is accountable to the people's representatives, impeachment will be the only remedy left.
Posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix (Member # 10094) on :
Nato,
It is obvious you hate the administration under Dubyah, the question still remains though. How do you feel about our military? Presidents come and go, but our military will always be there. Some of us served longer then most presidents were in office.
So regardless of who has the reigns how do you feel about the military?
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
Sorry for allowing this topic to stray so far from the original post.
I agree with kmbboots about the amount of money we pump into the military raising the level of violence, terror, and danger in the world, and our tendency to use the military when other means would be preferable.
I think it's insane that the Democrats are giving the Pentagon the biggest budget they've ever gotten right after a vote in November that pretty much everybody interpreted as anti-war.
I don't have anything against individual members of the military in general. I abhor the fact that some Americans in uniform have and do commit acts of heinous torture, degradation, and wanton murder. I believe every service member must absolutely refuse to be involved in any illegal action or the coverup (passive or active) of any illegal action (Pat Tillman's death, for example. Have you been reading what's come out in the past few days?)
The macro-level practices of our military-industrial complex are abhorrent. The absolutely unaccountable waste that the military is engaged in with the no-bid contracts and the nonenforcement of those no-bid contracts (there are many cases of projects in the Iraqi reconstruction that were paid for and never completed--sometimes at the cost of millions to American taxpayers--and let's be honest: today's taxpayers are not the ones who are going to feel the biggest brunt of the insane amount of debt Bush is pushing us into, it'll be today's youth.)
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan allow the government to funnel money from the taxpayers and from loans to a small group of corporations that are the lucky ones to receive no-bid contracts for millions and millions of dollars, with guaranteed profit-margins at high rates.
Every soldier who signs up for this takes his pay from this ever-growing cesspool of debt, digging us a little deeper.
I am not saying we need to get rid of the active military, but the fact that we spend more on our military every year than the next twenty-five nations in the world put together is absolutely ridiculous. Our wars, by many groups' estimations, have made us more vulnerable to terror at an incredible cost to the taxpayers of today and tomorrow. This brutal hemorrhage of money must be slowed down. And seeing the budget the Democratic party is pushing through, it's not getting any smaller.
I admire the fact that many soldiers feel they are doing something to serve their country. I wish our leadership used the military responsibly and sustainably, but that isn't your fault.
I strongly feel that military people need to be aware of what is going on. You need to read the news from independent sources. And you need to be prepared to resist any action that is illegal to the extent that you can. Furthermore, anyone in the military covering up for a crime needs to stop that.
Hookt, What do you think about private security contractors like Blackwater?
Posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix (Member # 10094) on :
I do not see a need for groups like Blackwater personally. I feel the military should be self sustaining and accountable for its budget.
I think that if there is training required on a subject that is not typically in the training manual then perhaps hire a contractor that has experience, but it should be a last resort.
I also feel the actions are mercenary and damn near vigilante. I have my own idea of how a military should be, and how it should be trained. I also have an idea of required military requirements but we are years and a huge cultural shift before they can be inacted.
Actually a lot of this I brought up in my novel (which will be hitting the shelfs by the end of the year). I have my own ideas on how it is supposed to work. I think we have to many pieces in a system that is geared to be simple.
I think four branches is way to much when we can get by with two, one if you consider the USN and USMC the same branch. States can still maintain a nation guard, but they would be state funded and trained.
The federal force woudl be under the control of the Federal Government, and a lot slimmer and meaner. The other requirements woudl be to remember the three rules of war, at least in my mind.
1) How will you deploy 2) Define what is considered a win 3) After the fighting is done, what is next
3 could also be looked at as a exit strategy, which I do not feel our current leadership had or has.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Seriously? You're having a novel published?
Posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix (Member # 10094) on :
Yes, Winter of Humanity author Jesse Walter Shocking huh? If a guy like me can get published, there is hope for any one.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Touching the no-bid contracts: There is an old joke among soldiers that you should always remember that your equipment was delivered by the lowest bidder. Maybe Bush wanted to do away with that problem. Posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix (Member # 10094) on :
one good thing he did lol
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
Those no-bid contracts didn't cover body armor of decent quality.
The sums are simple. Reconstruction will cost considerably more than originally imagined. The American administration has committed most of its funds. The Iraqis have neither the money nor the expertise to run the projects that have been completed. There’s little transparency or accountability. To judge from the audits published so far, at least $12 billion spent by the Americans and by the Iraqi interim and transitional governments has not been properly accounted for. Almost three years after the fall of Saddam, the GAO reports, ‘it is unclear how US efforts are helping the Iraqi people obtain clean water, reliable electricity or competent healthcare.’ The Bush administration has decided to provide no more reconstruction funds.
.....
It appears that CPA officials handed stacks of $100 bills to local dignitaries and others whose support they wanted and whose intelligence they needed, to dispose of as they saw fit. The ‘reconstruction’ projects seem to have been part of a ‘hearts and minds’ campaign and it may never have been intended that the funds be properly accounted for. A woman from al-Hillah told me that $100,000 designated for a local women’s centre with which she was involved was handed over to a local dignitary who, she alleges, used it to finance his election campaign. The money came from the Development Fund for Iraq: it was, in other words, Iraqi money handed over to the Americans under UN Security Council Resolution 1483 to be spent ‘in a transparent manner to meet the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people’.
.......
The minister didn’t sign every contract himself. His deputy secretary general, Ziyad al-Qataan, handled much of the paperwork for several contracts in which full payment, in cash, was made up front to Iraqi and other Arab businessmen acting as middle men for Polish, American and other military equipment firms. Hundreds of millions of dollars were transferred from the Iraqi government’s holdings into bank accounts in Lebanon, Jordan and elsewhere. Some $201 million in cash was taken out of the country through Baghdad airport, in violation of currency control regulations. Many of the contracts had an 18-month delivery time, hopelessly long for equipment urgently needed by the new Iraqi armed forces to whom the Americans say they are going to hand over so that US troops can be withdrawn.
Much of the equipment – helicopters, uniforms, armoured cars, bullet-proof vests, ammunition, winter coats – has never turned up, or has turned out to be grossly substandard and overpriced. For example, the ministry paid an Emirates firm $113,000 apiece for 230 land cruisers that usually cost $35,000 each. The ministry paid more than $300,000 over the top for 2500 bullet-proof vests. There is also the matter of a $9-million contract for 300,000 ‘defective hand grenades’.
The Iraq reconstruction is a system for funneling money to selected people with no regard for the taxpayers who will have to shoulder the burden of these payouts.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
And that's very cool that you are getting published! Posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix (Member # 10094) on :
Nato,
I love you man I really do, but this thread is not just for you to regurgitate news articles at us to justify your hatred for Bush. We get it man, we really do.
This is about the choice to join the military being moral or not. Hell with all the crap you have been throwing out, I respect the troops even more, for still doing their job and putting up with all this crap.
I am sure that joining the military can be moral. I felt my choice to join was the moral one. A solider can be moral even if his general is not. Hell anyone that sends a soldier to war must have a least a little subjective morality. The option woudl be a skewed moral compass, or a real serious need to compromise the morality of their soldiers to preserve something greater.
Regardless the decision to become a solider is a deep and moral choice. The reason for this, is that each bright eyed green fng that rolls out of boot has dreams of serving his or her country. Not necessarily the president, but the country for sure.
It is not just the country the way we see it here, but they way it should be seen. Its amazing when you talk to a booter, and it makes me think if I was that naive. As a Marine fresh out of training what he thinks America is, and what he hopes to get form his career.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
There are a ton of great people in the military who serve our country justly. I'll stop derailing this thread.
Posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix (Member # 10094) on :
Nato, get on your soap box brother, but it might be more effectively served by starting another thread. Perhaps title it "Why I hate Bush, and the good ole boy network."
Posted by Hookt_Un_Fonix (Member # 10094) on :
our how about "lets trim the Bush?" or maybe "a gun in your hand is better then two from Bush."
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
It's not a matter of hating anybody. I just can't stand the practices of the current government, and I can't see why some people would say we just have to "have faith in the system" when the system has produced exactly what we have now. This is not what everyone says Democracy is supposed to produce. We need to address that problem. Bush's rise to power is just a symptom of the deep problems our democracy has.
Bush is an infection, causing us pain and discomfort, so we have to treat it directly now, but we should also try to shore up the immune system against this kind of disease so our children can have a country to live in that they can actually be proud of.
[ July 27, 2007, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: Nato ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
So why aren't you a politician? Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
Nato is a little naive, but as a fan of his(?) mind I have faith that eventually he'll grow up and see how individual choice has to be tempered with the reality of consequences.
Hookt seems to recognize that Nato isn't right, but I'm not sure he knows how or why....and while his incorrect word usage, habit of writing in lowercase letters, and use of the lol are endearing; they don't lead me to take what he says seriously.
Sorry for the bluntness up there, but I'm tired after a long night of safeguarding freedom (or something), and wading through half-thoughts while half-awake is irritating.
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
How is that a glorious decision?![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)