| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/05/2007 11:34:34 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
You have troops posting all over this thread!!! Their words!!! By all means feel free to form an opinion based on that. |
He did, right here:
Originally posted by posthumous:
I've been finding the accounts of veterans on this thread very enlightening. I learned some things. |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
If your opinion is thus 'they have an agenda' then, fine. |
I get it now. You outline the conclusions others will draw from the things they themselves have said. I think you've invented a whole new way of arguing. |
|
|
|
02/05/2007 11:37:15 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Once again, it is you who have decided to speak for the troops, not I. Am I supposed to base my opinion on my overgeneralization of what other people believe instead of on facts? Fascinating.
|
You have troops posting all over this thread!!! Their words!!! By all means feel free to form an opinion based on that. If your opinion is thus 'they have an agenda' then, fine. Best of luck to you. |
We all have an agenda. The most dangerous people are those who don't realize it.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2007 11:38:10 PM · #128 |
| Whatever. Posthumous, good luck. Posthumous' cheerleader, good luck to you as well. |
|
|
|
02/05/2007 11:46:01 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Whatever. Posthumous, good luck. Posthumous' cheerleader, good luck to you as well. |
Dang it, all I get is a cheerleader and you have a whole army!
SAVE THE CHEERLEADER
|
|
|
|
02/05/2007 11:48:10 PM · #130 |
| ...if you think I'm putting that costume on, you're sadly mistaken. |
|
|
|
02/05/2007 11:54:51 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
We all have an agenda. The most dangerous people are those who don't realize it. |
While I have a full appreciation of your concerns in regards to military recruiting procedures, I must confess that any support you might have had from me was totally eradicated by this one comment:
The military is for killing people. I have an aversion to that.
I have had numerous friends, relatives and immediate family members serve in the armed forces, two of whom served with the USMC in Vietnam, and can assure you that there is much more to the military than "Killing".
While there is merit to some of the views you hold... I only wish you could have proffered your opinion without resorting to sweeping generalizations and casting aspersions on all those who serve.
Your intentions might have been noble, but unfortunately your message is seemingly flawed.
Ray
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 05:45:29 AM · #132 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
The military is for killing people. I have an aversion to that.
I have had numerous friends, relatives and immediate family members serve in the armed forces, two of whom served with the USMC in Vietnam, and can assure you that there is much more to the military than "Killing". |
I don't get it. Surely the primary mission of the military is combat operations? Some of the posts in this thread imply the military is some sort of humanitarian organisation. |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 06:46:20 AM · #133 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
The military is for killing people. I have an aversion to that.
I have had numerous friends, relatives and immediate family members serve in the armed forces, two of whom served with the USMC in Vietnam, and can assure you that there is much more to the military than "Killing". |
I don't get it. Surely the primary mission of the military is combat operations? Some of the posts in this thread imply the military is some sort of humanitarian organisation. |
Actually NO... most would seem to suggest that the military cannot be viewed solely as it relates to the its most recognizable element, that being combat. Does the military involve itself in humanitarian undertakings, yes... it most certainly does.
The issue here is one of balance. We ought not to make sweeping generalizations about any specific organizations based solely one one aspect of the activities it engages in.
The crux of the problem is that we have two diametrically opposed points of view being presented, and it seems that neither camp is prepared to accept the musings of the other.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 08:09:20 AM · #134 |
Originally posted by Louis:
...if you think I'm putting that costume on, you're sadly mistaken. |
Oh come on! Please! I'll bet you could make it look good!
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 08:22:10 AM · #135 |
 routerguy666, I'm confused.
Earlier in this thread, you suggested that our reason for being in Iraq is to get their oil...
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by jhonan:
What I would like to understand is what is the final goal of all this action in Iraq, and how that will benefit the American people. |
Our troops in the middle of the world's largest oil producing region. Pray that your leaders are smart enough to continue to tag along. |
Now you're saying things like...
Originally posted by routerguy666:
...most of the troops believe in what they are doing. They aren't cynical people watching TV half a planet away drawing conclusions based on third hand information. They are betting their lives on what they believe to be a just cause. If you don't support the war, you are calling them fools at best and agenda-pushing liars at worst who are just wasting their time and risking their lives for nothing. |
From your earlier post about getting Iraq's oil, it would appear that you are the one calling our troops either fools or liars.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 01:00:14 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
While I have a full appreciation of your concerns in regards to military recruiting procedures, I must confess that any support you might have had from me was totally eradicated by this one comment:
The military is for killing people. I have an aversion to that.
|
I'm sorry for my non-politically-correct phrasing, but the primary function of the military is killing. For example, imagine a military without weapons. What would it do, exactly? And what are weapons designed to do? Kill and destroy.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that one of the objectives of basic training is preparing a recruit to take another life. In other words, to make him a killer.
This DOES NOT mean that the military is a bad thing.
This DOES NOT mean that the military cannot accomplish other things.
But killing is the essence of all military institutions. To say anything else is PC-talk, aka NewSpeak, aka DoubleThink. Patton wouldn't stand for it.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 01:07:14 PM · #137 |
[quote=posthumous]
You truly should consider reading up on the myriad of things the military does get involved with.
Your juxtaposition is untenable. Would you reason that since police officers are also trained in the use of firearms that they are also to be considered killers.
Being trained to accomplish something does not instantaneously modify the totality of an individual's behavioral and emotional characteristics to such an extent that he or she automatically becomes a mindless killer, which is the inference made in your comment.
You are grasping at straws with these endless metaphors... and they do little to garner support to your cause.
Ray
Message edited by author 2007-02-06 13:19:55. |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 01:52:02 PM · #138 |
| The primary goal of the US Armed Forces is to protect and defend the United States of America. Not to go out killing. Secondary Goal is to protect and defend Allied Nations. Not to go out killing. Third is to help and serve in humanitarian causes around the world. Does killing go on? Yes. Is it the sole purpose no. |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 05:42:19 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
While I have a full appreciation of your concerns in regards to military recruiting procedures, I must confess that any support you might have had from me was totally eradicated by this one comment:
The military is for killing people. I have an aversion to that.
|
I'm sorry for my non-politically-correct phrasing, but the primary function of the military is killing. For example, imagine a military without weapons. What would it do, exactly? And what are weapons designed to do? Kill and destroy.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that one of the objectives of basic training is preparing a recruit to take another life. In other words, to make him a killer.
This DOES NOT mean that the military is a bad thing.
This DOES NOT mean that the military cannot accomplish other things.
But killing is the essence of all military institutions. To say anything else is PC-talk, aka NewSpeak, aka DoubleThink. Patton wouldn't stand for it. |
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 05:50:42 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by coronamv:
The primary goal of the US Armed Forces is to protect and defend the United States of America. Not to go out killing. |
Families of dead Iraqi civilians might disagree with you on this point.
The primary purpose of the military is unquestionably to kill -- or to pose the threat of killing. Otherwise, we could disband the military and rely on the State Department to negotiate their way to our objectives.
"Humanitarian" activities are a sometimes-useful sideline, and a way of making use of the personnel, materials, and expertise originally developed for killing/interfering with "enemy" activities, and not letting it all sit idle for long periods of time. |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 05:52:16 PM · #141 |
The function of police is to enforce the law.
The function of an army is to invade another country or to defend from another country invading. The only reason that armies have a "defend and protect" role is because other armies are attacking and destroying.
And the notion that the U.S. Army's goal is to "protect and defend," an admirable notion, has been completely and utterly undermined by the current Administration's reckless invasion of a sovereign nation that posed no significant threat. routerguy explained the real reason quite well. It was to "protect and defend" our oil supply.
Oh, and I've heard the argument about keeping terrorist activity "over there" instead of "over here." Hmm... and what is the rest of the world supposed to think about that strategy?
Oh, and please stop with the faulty logic. I am not saying what kind of people are in the military. I'm describing the military institution itself. And I already said it is capable of humanitarian tasks. This is why I can never sustain an argument on this board. People aren't responding to my arguments. They're responding to arguments they made up themselves.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 06:02:19 PM · #142 |
The thread has drifted so much off the original topic. Joining the military is quite different from other commitments like taking a job or signing a loan. You are committing to doing, possibly, terrible things on somebody else's command. You very well may do, while in the service, things that you may regret later for your entire life. The consequences of your actions, while in the service, may go well beyond your own life - they may affect other persons, families, cities, countries. And there will be no easy "I want out" end to it. It can't be denied that in US some people get themselves involved due to economic reasons: for some, it's a way out of a miserable life, rather than a conscious decision. Army is presented as a place, where one will be getting a good pay, one's basic needs will be taken care of for him, one will become "a man" (whatever the heck that means), etc. IMO, there is this false air of male romanticism and patriotism about military service.
Military service is often given this PRIDE sentiment. What's there to be proud of, a priori? If you look at the history of wars, each of them appears like an ugly, multi-headed monster of catastrophic events, leading to deaths and bad will. And during all those wars, the soldiers on both sides were proudly fighting for the good of their nation, "with god on their side". That said, my family fought and suffered in the World War II, and I realize that I owe a lot, quite possibly my life, to those who died defending Russia from the Germans. This subject is very difficult, but one thing I am sure about: it's wrong to automatically tag military service with the proud tag.
p.s. This post comes from a man who managed to sneak out of two compulsory military services (the Russian, and the Israeli), so, perhaps, I do not qualify to have an opinion. :)
Message edited by author 2007-02-06 18:02:46.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 09:01:10 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by coronamv:
The primary goal of the US Armed Forces is to protect and defend the United States of America. Not to go out killing. |
Families of dead Iraqi civilians might disagree with you on this point. |
As would, apparently, many living in the land of the free and what used to be called the home of the brave.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
The primary purpose of the military is unquestionably to kill -- or to pose the threat of killing. Otherwise, we could disband the military and rely on the State Department to negotiate their way to our objectives. |
Coulda fooled me. I spent my entire military career training for and performing installation and maintenance of defensive electronic systems ( RADIO/RADAR and flight simulators ). I never thought of any of those as offensive weapons designed to kill. I thought RADAR was a system designed to warn us of approaching enemy aircraft so that we could take effective defensive countermeasures.
Do you really think that primary purpose of the National Guard troops in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina was unquestionably to kill people? or to pose the threat of killing?
Did we threaten to kill people in the U.S.S.R. during the cold war? Or did we just present a strong military defense capable of defending ourselves, including counterstrikes, if necessary?
Originally posted by GeneralE:
"Humanitarian" activities are a sometimes-useful sideline, and a way of making use of the personnel, materials, and expertise originally developed for killing/interfering with "enemy" activities, and not letting it all sit idle for long periods of time. |
When I first arrived at Norton AFB in California in '64, I was asked ( not told ) to join a large contingent of my base's military personnel who were assisting in fighting wildfires burning in the San Bernardino hills. It was a no-brainer - in fact I don't remember a single member who didn't try to fit in some volunteer work around their work schedules - if they couldn't hack the physical labor, they did logistical work, transportation, supplies, etc.
When I was stationed in Alaska in '66, we manned radar operations 24/7/365 ( and neither people nor equipment sat idle for more than the time it took to refresh or repair ), but we still managed to often open our gymnasium and cafeteria to host the indigenous people ( Eskimos, mostly ). We flew in a ton of gifts for the kids at Christmastime, and had a big party for them ( with Santa ). And when a local woman was critically injured, who do you think were standing in line waiting their turn to provide her with the blood she needed for several hours of surgeries. She had a relatively rare blood type among the Eskimos, so there weren't enough matching donors in her village. Many of the G.I.s were disappointed that their blood didn't match either ( fwiw, there was no Red Cross to donate to - what was taken was used immediately ).
I've also, as a member of the military, beaten the bushes through extremely dense terrain in 100 degree heat in lockstep with others while combing the underbrush looking for a missing little girl ( a civilian ).
Humanitarian efforts are not just second thoughts by bored military men and women using otherwise idle equipment - in fact, humanitarian efforts very often come ahead of "routine" military operations when the need is apparent.
You provide no clue as to why you would make such a disparaging statement about the humanitarian activities of military men and women, but I assure you that in my 4+ years of service I did not see anything that would give credence to your claims. |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 09:14:38 PM · #144 |
Those are all great side benefits of having a large group of folks in good physical shape and with equipment available. None of those are the primary purpose of maintaining a military force, which is to threaten with deadly force to carry out national policy.
Do you really think the US Congress would appropriate a few hundred billion dollars a year just to maintain search-and-rescue teams or fire-fighters? |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 09:55:33 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Oh, and please stop with the faulty logic. I am not saying what kind of people are in the military. I'm describing the military institution itself. And I already said it is capable of humanitarian tasks. This is why I can never sustain an argument on this board. People aren't responding to my arguments. They're responding to arguments they made up themselves. |
What arguments... you are spewing utter nonsense and can't be bothered to respond to direct questions. If anyone has faulty logic you need only look in the mirror.
Voltaire said it best when he said:
"Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers",
and in the court of public opinion I fear that the judgement rendered on you may not the most flattering.
I sir am not inclined to embark into a circular debate and will leave you to your own devices and let you as they say in the local vernacular,"Flap your gums in the wind".
DO enjoy your ensuing discussions with others, I no longer have an interest in any further discourse.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 10:05:08 PM · #146 |
army bad...
but soldiers good!
but army bad...
but soldiers good!
yes, soldiers good, but army bad...
no, soldiers are good!
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 10:53:41 PM · #147 |
I have to agree with posthumous and generalE, they hit the nail on the head when they say the military's primary purpose is, in generalE's words "which is to threaten with deadly force to carry out national policy." Naturally, killing is going to be involved with this type of purpose, at least until everyone can get along. You completely pulled the "Being trained to accomplish something does not instantaneously modify the totality of an individual's behavioral and emotional characteristics to such an extent that he or she automatically becomes a mindless killer" out of thin air. Additionally I have to agree that posthumous is indeed not spewing "utter nonsense." I believe that your arguing, is more against posthumous, than what posthumous is saying at this point. Early in the thread you offered much, but at this point I feel this is not the case. It's unfortunate that you should seemingly give up, as I honestly think you have, as I said earlier, offered much to this discussion, and thank you for that.
Posthumous, I think your style of arguing is a bit unconventional at best, but I think your points are well made. I think perhaps you could at least attempt to take things in a more serious manor. Perhaps, it is the non-serious manor that is creating this terrible grinding between the two of you almost as much as the topic itself. Of course this is just my opinion, and obviously this isn't a formal debate. Despite all this, I'm still leaning towards your side with the points being made. I think this topic is genuinely interesting, and that's coming from a person who completely hates all politics.
I'd like to also thank everyone else who made significant, or thought provoking additions to this thread.
Message edited by author 2007-02-06 22:54:09. |
|
|
|
02/06/2007 11:18:35 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
I think perhaps you could at least attempt to take things in a more serious manor. |
Maybe you're right. It's a defense mechanism, I'm afraid, and also a boredom mechanism. I am a very conceptual thinker and it frustrates me when my points are misunderstood. Then I see the argument going into one of those circles that political arguments always go into. So I try to shake things up a bit. Unlike certain other ranters and ravers (I'm only referring to the longwinded ones), I actually worry that there's a reader out there who is getting bored.
Interestingly, I feel like routerguy and I have similar tendencies. We get bored with the standard arguments and try to shake things up, even at the expense of our own side of the argument. We just end up on opposite sides of most issues.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 11:39:24 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Oh, and please stop with the faulty logic. I am not saying what kind of people are in the military. I'm describing the military institution itself. And I already said it is capable of humanitarian tasks. This is why I can never sustain an argument on this board. People aren't responding to my arguments. They're responding to arguments they made up themselves. |
What arguments... you are spewing utter nonsense and can't be bothered to respond to direct questions. If anyone has faulty logic you need only look in the mirror.
Voltaire said it best when he said:
"Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers",
and in the court of public opinion I fear that the judgement rendered on you may not the most flattering.
I sir am not inclined to embark into a circular debate and will leave you to your own devices and let you as they say in the local vernacular,"Flap your gums in the wind".
DO enjoy your ensuing discussions with others, I no longer have an interest in any further discourse.
Ray |
Agreed.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2007 11:40:59 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
[...] I am a very conceptual thinker and it frustrates me when my points are misunderstood. |
Hyperbole leads to misunderstanding. Since it is a text-based discussion, people may not always know where the emphasis of each statement is. I do not think everything you have stated was received as you intended, and I do not think that everything you have responded to was meant in the way you interpreted it.
With regard to military being primarily about killing, my only thought is this: If the US was invaded and the military captured all of the bad guys, stopped their attack, and put them in jail without anyone being killed, would you consider this a successful mission? I think that would be very successful, and thus the "killing" is not their primary goal, but rather a very special, limited, and sacred tool they are allowed to use in the appropriate circumstances to achieve their primary goal.
The primary goal is the protection of the United States of America. |
|
