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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
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 Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1766 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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)
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
