God Bless the United States...

[Yonivore]

...military.

http://www.lucianne.com/routine/images/01-05-05.jpg

[NeoConIV]

Indeed, God Bless our military.

[Hook Dem]

I wonder how long it will take for some snug asshole to make a derogatory comment about that wonderful photo.

[JoeChalupa]

Semper Fi!!

Damn right I support our military.

[Jekka]

I wonder how long it will take for some snug asshole to make a derogatory comment about that wonderful photo.

Anyone who would make a snide comment on a photo like that is out of line. It's not the military some of us have a problem with, it's what this administration is making them do. My feelings on it can be summed up with a quote from Bertrand Russell:


Patriots always talk of dying for their country and never of killing for their country.

It's a beautiful photo regardless of whose military the man holding the child represents. You're comment in anticipation of the photo being ruined is what actually ruined it.

[travis2]

But you know what? The job of the military is to kill people and break things with extreme prejudice. There's no way to get around that.

The job of the military is NOT to be a Red Cross clone.

It just happens that they are good at doing that too. And when they can, they should.

[Yonivore]

But you know what? The job of the military is to kill people and break things with extreme prejudice. There's no way to get around that.

The job of the military is NOT to be a Red Cross clone.

It just happens that they are good at doing that too. And when they can, they should.
And, that is the case here...

[Jekka]

But you know what? The job of the military is to kill people and break things with extreme prejudice. There's no way to get around that.

The job of the military is NOT to be a Red Cross clone.

It just happens that they are good at doing that too. And when they can, they should.

You honestly think the a military's purpose is to "kill"? Call it idealistic (after all, we cynics are disappointed idealists), but I'd like to think we're past the ages of militaries being expressly for imperialistic empires where you go in, conquer and pillage, and rule authoritatively thereafter. I was under the impression that when budgets were configured the military was labelled under "defense spending" and such rather than "money for murder". This country has established that it can defend itself, if its military is going to go outside the country then shouldn't it be to help instead of to kill? You talk about it like helping someone was just incidental.

[travis2]

I know that. I was referring to Jekka's posting of the Bertrand Russell comment.

Just because "patriots" may not talk of killing for their country, they are often called upon to do so.

Patriots don't need to talk about killing for their country. They understand they may need to without talking about it.

It's sort of like saying "a true leader doesn't need to tell others how great a leader he/she is"...

[Jekka]

I know that. I was referring to Jekka's posting of the Bertrand Russell comment.

Just because "patriots" may not talk of killing for their country, they are often called upon to do so.

Patriots don't need to talk about killing for their country. They understand they may need to without talking about it.

It's sort of like saying "a true leader doesn't need to tell others how great a leader he/she is"...

That's a pretty fucked up analogy - you're equating great leadership with killing.

[travis2]

You honestly think the a military's purpose is to "kill"? Call it idealistic (after all, we cynics are disappointed idealists), but I'd like to think we're past the ages of militaries being expressly for imperialistic empires where you go in, conquer and pillage, and rule authoritatively thereafter. I was under the impression that when budgets were configured the military was labelled under "defense spending" and such rather than "money for murder". This country has established that it can defend itself, if its military is going to go outside the country then shouldn't it be to help instead of to kill? You talk about it like helping someone was just incidental.

And you talk about any military member who understands the need to kill is not a patriot.

In the end, yes. The military's purpose is to kill.

Now, having said that, the military does everything in its power not to do that unnecessarily. Military members do not enjoy killing and would prefer not to. But they understand it's in the job description.

In short, the military's job is to enforce the policies of their parent government. That definition applies to any country's forces, not just our own. When it can be done without killing, that's how it's done. When it can't be, then it's done in such a way as to minimize the killing.

[travis2]

That's a pretty fucked up analogy - you're equating great leadership with killing.

No I'm not.

On the other hand, you're equating patriotism with complete pacifism. Which I think is pretty fucked up, myself.

[MannyIsGod]

Patriots don't need to talk about killing for their country. They understand they may need to without talking about it.




The understanding is quite debateable. Do the so called patriots in this country really understand the horror of real war? Or is their version of killing sanitized by one too many gun camera videos? When a country sits back and is critical of the arabic news network who shows much of the killing, I wonder if it does "understand" what killing is.

I don't doubt that there are a great number of people who are patriotic and do understand what is going on in Iraq and other places we use our military, but I do doubt that all (or even a majority) so called patriots understand what war is, and the supposed need for it.

And as Jekka said, the feelings of those who are against the war are not directed in any way at the military and the men and women in it, but the supposed patriots in the white house who supposubly understand a supposed need to kill.

[MannyIsGod]

On the other hand, you're equating patriotism with complete pacifism. Which I think is pretty fucked up, myself.

Because war is the only patriotic measure? You know, as fucked up as that is, that is this country's perception.

[Jekka]

No I'm not.

On the other hand, you're equating patriotism with complete pacifism. Which I think is pretty fucked up, myself.

I recognize that complete pacifism is something that will probably never happen - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it. I'm saying that all other options had better be exhausted before we send people in for the purpose of killing.

[travis2]

The understanding is quite debateable. Do the so called patriots in this country really understand the horror of real war?

...the feelings of those who are against the war are not directed in any way at the military and the men and women in it, but the supposed patriots in the white house who supposubly understand a supposed need to kill.

Military members are patriots too, Manny. That's my only point in this thread.

And yes, they understand the horror of real war.

[MannyIsGod]

Patriots are those who love their country, regardless of how they think that country should be run.

[travis2]

Patriots are those who love their country, regardless of how they think that country should be run.

I've never implied otherwise.

[Duff McCartney]

It's a beautiful photo regardless of whose military the man holding the child represents. You're comment in anticipation of the photo being ruined is what actually ruined it.

I prefer the quote by Oscar Wilde...


Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.

[samikeyp]

the job of a military is also to protect...looks like it in that picture to me.

Great quote, Manny. I think one thing that people tend to forget is that the reason why they can complain about the government is because of our military has put themselves on the line throughout history to ensure such rights.

[travis2]

Well, if we're doing quotes, how about this one? It's only from a character in a sci-fi novel, but I think it hits the nail on the head...

Pacifism for the sake of pacifism is the height of arrogant selfishness when that belief prevents you from acting to save others from harm

[Yonivore]

The military's principle purpose is to kill enemy combatants and to destroy enemy assets. Period.

However, having said that, the photo demonstrates our military has other uses...and, we're damn good at it.

[JoeChalupa]

Marines believe that one of our duties is to fight for those who can't fight for themselves and there is nothing wrong with that.

And yes, I got that from "A Few Good Men".

[Yonivore]

Marines believe that one of our duties is to fight for those who can't fight for themselves and there is nothing wrong with that.

And yes, I got that from "A Few Good Men".
And, yet, you oppose the Iraq operation...where we're fighting for those who cannot fight for themselves.

[MannyIsGod]

And, yet, you oppose the Iraq operation...where we're fighting for those who cannot fight for themselves.

You know, lets stop the fucking bullshit!


THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOES NOT GO AROUND DOING THINGS IN THIS WORLD UNLESS THERE IS AN UNDERLYING REASON WHICH IS NOT ALWAYS SOMETHING THAT WILL GIVE YOU WARM FUZZIES.

I'm sick of the way the military actions of this country are always sold as some noble crusade where we are off to save the world.

We do things that have beneficial consequences, and I am not denying that. There are definetly people in Iraq who are now better off because of our actions.

But the fact remains that we will do less than desirable things to innocent people across the globe whenever it suits our goals, short sighted and noble. We did not go into Iraq to save the masses, we went in for other reasons. So don't try and sell the operation as a humanitarian one, it's fucking insulting.

[Nbadan]

“To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public"

-Theodore Roosevelt (1918 editorial after W. Wilson cracked down on WW1 dissent)

[travis2]

You know, lets stop the fucking bullshit!


THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOES NOT GO AROUND DOING THINGS IN THIS WORLD UNLESS THERE IS AN UNDERLYING REASON WHICH IS NOT ALWAYS SOMETHING THAT WILL GIVE YOU WARM FUZZIES.

I'm sick of the way the military actions of this country are always sold as some noble crusade where we are off to save the world.

We do things that have beneficial consequences, and I am not denying that. There are definetly people in Iraq who are now better off because of our actions.

But the fact remains that we will do less than desirable things to innocent people across the globe whenever it suits our goals, short sighted and noble. We did not go into Iraq to save the masses, we went in for other reasons. So don't try and sell the operation as a humanitarian one, it's fucking insulting.

What other reasons? Oil? That conspiracy theory was trashed ages ago. If you are stupid enough to continue to spread that lie, then we will trash your opinions too.

No terrorist ties? Oops...that one is heading for the trash can too.

Why don't you stop the fucking bullshit (your words). Instead of whining like a 6-year-old girl about what somehow you are owed, get off your fat ass and do something for others. How about enlisting? Or get your degree and go to OTS? Then maybe you'll actually learn something about the military instead of spewing garbage about it.

[MannyIsGod]

What other reasons? Oil? That conspiracy theory was trashed ages ago. If you are stupid enough to continue to spread that lie, then we will trash your opinions too.


Wait Wait. You're saying oil hasn't played the largest reason for going to war in Iraq? THE ENTIRE REASON WE HAVE ANY MILITARY PRESENCE IN THE PERSIAN GULF REGION IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO OIL!!!!!

There is a reason we don't go "save" people in places like Rawanda and the Ivory Coast Travis, and that's because they don't have shit that we need.



No terrorist ties? Oops...that one is heading for the trash can too.


Oh you mean like the ties that are linked to the government in Saudia Arabia and Pakistan, 2 of our supposed Allies????? So are those countries next to be invaded? Shit, why don't we go save all of the oppressed Saudis Travis?



Why don't you stop the fucking bullshit (your words). Instead of whining like a 6-year-old girl about what somehow you are owed, get off your fat ass and do something for others.


Want to compare our resume of volunteer hours over the past year Trav? I'm all up for seeing which one of us has done more helping of others.



How about enlisting? Or get your degree and go to OTS? Then maybe you'll actually learn something about the military instead of spewing garbage about it.


Spewing garbage about the military? No dumbass, I'm pissed off by the way the military is used. But of course, as was discussed previously in this thread, you have trouble seperating those 2.

As for enlisting, no. Why on earth would I go to an organization that I feel is being misused in the largest way?

[Yonivore]

Wait Wait. You're saying oil hasn't played the largest reason for going to war in Iraq? THE ENTIRE REASON WE HAVE ANY MILITARY PRESENCE IN THE PERSIAN GULF REGION IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO OIL!!!!!

Stability in the oil-producing regions means economic stability which means means national stability which translates into national security...it's not just that there's oil in them thar sand dunes, it's that we have, like it or not, a global economy that depends, in large part, on the free trade of petroleum -- not extortive trade such as would be the case if we DIDN'T have a presence in the Gulf region (just ask Jimmy Carter what happens when you let that region run roughshod over you -- I remember gas lines).

Some day that will change, but not on a dime...And, what we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan (liberating the people and introducing self-determined government - in addition to weaking global terrorism and their supportive regimes), is the only way to ensure that we can, in the future, deal with the region diplomatically instead of militarily.

There is a reason we don't go "save" people in places like Rawanda and the Ivory Coast Travis, and that's because they don't have shit that we need.

Fair enough...but, on the other hand, should that prevent us from engaging, altruistically, in regions where we do gain some national benefit? And, on a similar note, name one other nation on the globe that does either -- goes to the Rwandas and Darfurs and Ivory Coasts without any ambition of self-gain...or, goes to the Afghanistans, Iraqs, Bosnias, on missions of relief where they too, didn't reap a benefit....

Oh you mean like the ties that are linked to the government in Saudia Arabia and Pakistan, 2 of our supposed Allies????? So are those countries next to be invaded? Shit, why don't we go save all of the oppressed Saudis Travis?

I would argue that our relationship with Pakistan is a strained accommodation as opposed to an alliance and that in Saudi Arabia, our gripe is more with the unruly Mullahs and Islamic Extremists than with the obviously out of touch (and out of control) Monarchy. And, I see our relationship with Pakistan deteriorating in direct proportion to the stabilization of Afghanistan. Also, I see the Saudi Government becoming much more pro-active in reigning in their terrorist element.

Just read the news sometime..

But, as to terrorist ties between Iraq and al Qaeda or other global terrorist organizations...let me direct your attention to this tidbit from David Kay. Remember him? The left was all atwitter over the release of his report when they mischaracterized his words by claiming he reported there was absolutely, positively, without a doubt, no link between Iraq and al Qaeda?


"We know there were terrorist groups in state still seeking WMD capability. Iraq, although I found no weapons, had tremendous capabilities in this area. [I]A marketplace phenomenon was about to occur, if it did not occur; sellers meeting buyers. And I think that would have been dangerous if the war had not intervened."

Just because you're adept at taking out-of-context quotes (in the case of reporting on the final David Kay report) or totally ignoring quotes (in the case of the above), and just becuase the news sources you choose to listen to doesn't mention these things, and just because you don't read the source document on which your news sources base their "reports," doesn't mean those things weren't true or not said...think about it.

I've read the Kay report and it demonstrates that Saddam Hussein was continuing to develop WMD's, that he may have had them as late as two months prior to invasion, that he WAS engaging terrorist organizations, that he WAS allowing various terrorist organizations to operate within Iraq, etc...

It's a fascinating report, you should read it sometime.

[desflood]

The military's principle purpose is to kill enemy combatants and to destroy enemy assets. Period.

However, having said that, the photo demonstrates our military has other uses...and, we're damn good at it.
Recall the Revolutionary War. The rude military formed then. The purpose was to ensure that all civilians would be allowed to keep the basic freedoms. That is what they do now. The difference is, they are doing it in another country.

[dcole50]

And, yet, you oppose the Iraq operation...where we're fighting for those who cannot fight for themselves.There are people being oppressed all over the world. We can't invade every nation where this is present.

[Yonivore]

There are people being oppressed all over the world. We can't invade every nation where this is present.
True, that's why we pick the ones that pose a clear security risk to our nation.