Is Heroism Defined by One Act or a Lifetime of Actions?

[Gokul43201]

It is clear that there are many misconceptions about the military being displayed here. I do not have time to quote each one individually so here are just a few of the blatant ones that I see.

Myth 1: Soldiers are brainwashed to be a bunch of killers
...
Myth 2: No aiming is required when dropping bombs.
...
Myth 3: There is not much emotional stress involved in aerial combat missions.
...
Myth 4: The National Guard is made up of a bunch of draft dodgers.
...

Could you please quote/name the posts where these specific misconceptions were displayed?

Also, I get the impression that many here grossly underestimate the academic programs at the service academies. Having graduated from the Air Force Academy, I can say that getting accepted into the Academy was much harder for me than getting accepted into MIT. In fact, my room mate (1st year) also easily got accepted into MIT. However, he flunked out of the Air Force Academy.

It's one thing to say that the AFA has a strong academic program, but completely silly to compare it with MIT - you've just hurt your credibility by doing that.

Incidentally, the mid-range SAT math scores for AFA admits is http://www.academyadmissions.com/admissions/preparation/academic_prep.php .

 

[Gokul43201]

I take it that he won't be getting your vote in the November election?

Neither will his opponent from the Democratic party.

 

[B. Elliott]

If you enlist you will only be one of countless pawns, I am not especially fearful of you.

"I'm a pawn", "I'm oppressed". Prepare yourself to be oppressed even more, another 'pawn' is about to be added to the machine.

If you think the government has already blown too much money, get ready for programs such as free healthcare to go through. Too many people in the country expect to be handed a free ride. Believing that they deserve this, deserve that. Owed this, owed that. Well, you're owed nothing. If you want something you're going to have to pay for it one way or another. What's making this country go down the tubes is the individual believing that they have free reign.

There's no such thing as a free lunch.

"Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."

-- John F. Kennedy

And he was a democrat at that.

 

[phyzmatix]

What's making this country go down the tubes is the individual believing that they have free reign.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and let you re-phrase the above, since it sounds like you are dangerously close to starting an attack on human rights and individuals' freedom.

 

[B. Elliott]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and let you re-phrase the above, since it sounds like you are dangerously close to starting an attack on human rights and individuals' freedom.

There is no need to re-phrase it, unless you're wanting to dissect and interpret the wording it in your own way. I've made my point clear...

As an American, you're owned nothing and do not have free reign to do whatever you want.

 

[Crosson]

If you think the government has already blown too much money, get ready for programs such as free healthcare to go through. Too many people in the country expect to be handed a free ride. Believing that they deserve this, deserve that. Owed this, owed that. Well, you're owed nothing. If you want something you're going to have to pay for it one way or another. What's making this country go down the tubes is the individual believing that they have free reign.

This is propaganda that is designed to distract you from the real problem. As long as the middle class keeps blaming poor people for taking all the money, they will be oblivious to the obvious fact that the rich people are the ones taking all the money.

Who gets bailed out when the airlines industry suffers? The investors, but not the employees.

Who gets bailed out when the housing market crashes? The mortgage sellers, not the home buyers.

Wake up to the fact that corporate welfare has always far exceeded social welfare by several orders of magnitude. If anything, national healthcare would only be the straw that broke the camel's back, only after loading the camel up with hundreds of pounds of Lockhead & Martin wargear.

There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Of course there is, it's called 'being born into a rich family'. I know you have been programmed to believe that becoming rich is only a matter of hard work, but I suggest you examine the source of the big family fortunes, Rockefeller, Morgan, Du Pont, etc ... you will fine that they all began with one of three things: piracy, colonization, and the slave trade.

-- John F. Kennedy

And he was a democrat at that.

He was also part of a rich family! 'Republican' and 'Democrat' are just distractions from the real division in society: owners and workers. The whole system of mega-riches depends on owners exploiting workers, which they can do because (1) the owners control the means of production (2) more importantly, they can convince people in the middle class to be 'uncle toms' and unwittingly support the corrupt mega-rich.

 

[B. Elliott]

This is propaganda that is designed to distract you from the real problem. As long as the middle class keeps blaming poor people for taking all the money, they will be oblivious to the obvious fact that the rich people are the ones taking all the money.

Who gets bailed out when the airlines industry suffers? The investors, but not the employees.

Who gets bailed out when the housing market crashes? The mortgage sellers, not the home buyers.

Wake up to the fact that corporate welfare has always far exceeded social welfare by several orders of magnitude. If anything, national healthcare would only be the straw that broke the camel's back, only after loading the camel up with hundreds of pounds of Lockhead & Martin wargear.



Of course there is, it's called 'being born into a rich family'. I know you have been programmed to believe that becoming rich is only a matter of hard work, but I suggest you examine the source of the big family fortunes, Rockefeller, Morgan, Du Pont, etc ... you will fine that they all began with one of three things: piracy, colonization, and the slave trade.



He was also part of a rich family! 'Republican' and 'Democrat' are just distractions from the real division in society: owners and workers. The whole system of mega-riches depends on owners exploiting workers, which they can do because (1) the owners control the means of production (2) more importantly, they can convince people in the middle class to be 'uncle toms' and unwittingly support the corrupt mega-rich.

Tell me then, what's stopping one from becoming rich?

 

[phyzmatix]

There is no need to re-phrase it, unless you're wanting to dissect and interpret the wording it in your own way. I've made my point clear...

As an American, you're owned nothing and do not have free reign to do whatever you want.

I disagree with you, your point is not clear at all...Wording is important, for example:

unless you're wanting

"want" cannot actually be used in this way since it is a state verb and therefore doesn't have a continuous tense, it's grammatically incorrect also in

you're owned nothing

"owned" is the past tense of "own" which means "to have or hold as property" as opposed to "owed", (you guessed it, the past tense of "owe") which means "to be under obligation to pay or repay in return for something received"...

Similarly

What's making this country go down the tubes is the individual believing that they have free reign

without any further explanation can be taken as an attack on individuals' freedom whereas

do not have free reign to do whatever you want

comes closer to what I think you are trying to say, since the inclusion of the phrase "whatever they want" leads the reader to believe that your statement allows for individual freedom and human rights as long as they are within the law.

Finally I fail to see how your rant on people expecting endless freebies have anything to do with "free reign". Perhaps you should revise the complete post?

 

[B. Elliott]

Finally I fail to see how your rant on people expecting endless freebies have anything to do with "free reign". Perhaps you should revise the complete post?

Whatever I say will be deconstructed to the point where it doesn't apply or makes no sense, so there's no point. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not that good with wording.

I have now entered, the spin zone.

 

[Gokul43201]

If you think the government has already blown too much money, get ready for programs such as free healthcare to go through. Too many people in the country expect to be handed a free ride. Believing that they deserve this, deserve that. Owed this, owed that. Well, you're owed nothing. If you want something you're going to have to pay for it one way or another. What's making this country go down the tubes is the individual believing that they have free reign.

I agree. That's why I've also been arguing that the Government disband its wasteful programs that hand out free police services, free fire protection, free emergency services, free maintenance of highways, free education, free public libraries, and free defense of the homeland.

 

[Crosson]

Tell me then, what's stopping one from becoming rich?

I will try to explain, but you have already said that economics is not your favorite subject, so bear with me.

Look at the important factors for production: land, labor, entrepreneurship, and capital goods (equipment, factories, etc).

To say we live in a capitalist society means that all the capital goods are privately owned. In addition, western civilization also believes in private land ownership.

Now, suppose you are born into a poor family that does not own any land or capital goods. This means that the only means of production you have are labor and entrepreneurship.

Suppose you choose to sell your labor. In order to produce anything valuable, however, you need land and/or capital goods, and so your only choice is to work for someone who owns some of these things. The problem is that the final goods that you produce will automatically be owned by the person you are working for, who will earn a profit. You did earn some wages, but you will be using these to buy other final goods like food and clothes. If you continue this path for the rest of your life, you can sometimes buy a house before you die (depending on how rich you were to start with), but you cannot become rich in one lifetime by collecting wages.

But some people do become rich in one lifetime, there are exceptions! Drug dealers and other sub-legal pirates can save up to buy capital goods and start legitimate businesses. Sometimes new technologies can make the inventor rich. But these are exceptions; it is ridiculous to suggest that anyone and everyone can invent new technologies just by working hard.

In conclusion, the thing stopping everyone from being rich is the private ownership of capital goods and land. If we publicly owned the means of production, then we would all be free to produce goods and sell them for a profit, and so we could all actually work hard and become rich.

 

[grant9076]

Could you please quote/name the posts where these specific misconceptions were displayed?

It's one thing to say that the AFA has a strong academic program, but completely silly to compare it with MIT - you've just hurt your credibility by doing that.

Incidentally, the mid-range SAT math scores for AFA admits is http://www.academyadmissions.com/admissions/preparation/academic_prep.php .

Here are some of the comments that gave me that impression:

Funny, I consider that to be a negative. Somehow being trained to kill people, and then actually killing people, doesn't seem like a life improving experience. Nor do I see any evidence of it. But since one has to be dispassionate to deal with the reality of dropping bombs, if there is any "value" in his experience in VN, shouldn't we expect that if anything, he has been desensitized to death, and kllling, as it was a part of his job? Do you consider that to be good?

It is not about being a good person or a bad person. We are talking about a mindset; in effect, a brainwashing.

There is some truth to the cranking out cold blooded killers thing, at last in certain areas of the military.

Of coarse, John McCain never got to see anyone he killed, or even had to aim, he just pressed a button and people were killed. This would be similar to how it would be for him in the white house.

My point with that remark was just that he may not have been impacted as to affect him like a solder who was in direct combat killing people with guns. The president is responsible for many deaths, but he didn't see it with his own eyes, so it is less likely he will feel the same as the ones who committed the act. He didn't get to see who died. It is just different to look in some ones eyes and then blast them than it is to push a butting dropping a laser guided bomb. I don't really mean to insult him for it.

Given that they did this while running a draft-dodger against an actual war hero last time around, it seems very much routine, and the Democratic preemption against it (via Clark) also seems to be very much politics-as-usual.

It's not like he hid out in the National Guard - which hasn't seemed to disqualify other people from the office.

As far as SAT scores and academics are concerned, I did get a 760 on the Math (in addition to getting top grades and winning the top science award for the High School). Getting good grades and high SAT scores will get you into MIT. However, it is considerably easier than getting good grades and high SAT scores in addition to participating in sports and a host of other extracurricular activities. By the way, the process of getting a congressman to recommend you (a minimum requirement for acceptance into the service Academies) is no cake walk either. The truth is that getting good grades is much easier if that is all your focus needs to be.

My room mate who was academically disenrolled was not able to balance the academic workload with playing sports every semester and the host of military activities.

 

[sketchtrack]

I know one person who is a vet and reminds me of John McCain, and you could say they have leadership skills, but not so much in a good way. When you are around him, it is his way or the highway, and his way always seems to serve his own interests more than those around him. When your there, you do what they want to do, you talk about what they want to talk about, you agree or you get attacked with a furry, by someone with a red face pacing back and forth. That is the kind of leadership that I don't like.

Also one thing I notice about many vets is that they think they are better than everyone who hasn't served. Sometimes they throw out reason and use their service as a way of saying I'm right because I served the country and your just a kid or whatever.

Also you can open up a pandoras box when arguing morals and ethics. It is entirely dependent on a value system, and things must be prioritized according to those values. If someone has their moral and ethical value system set in stone, then that could be a bad thing because I think each situation deserves a full investigation and consideration. I wouldn't like to follow someone who just went be a book and never thought about it for himself.

Another point I would like to make is that someone who has been taught to prioritize faith in and unconditional support of the their military superiors may not question things and just let the military do whatever they want. I also am afraid that their are leaders in the military that are tight with special interest, and there are leaders who are trigger happy and live for war.

I think it is the presidents job to be someone who thinks indipendant of the military, so that we have a balance, someone who can assess the issues without a military mind. The military guys are ready to go all the time, and if they get a go ahead they go. They had been itching to try out their new gear and topple the iraqi army, but they failed to realize that after taking out their government that their would be political issues that will keep us there and make the war a big deal after all.

 

[loseyourname]

I agree. That's why I've also been arguing that the Government disband its wasteful programs that hand out free police services, free fire protection, free emergency services, free maintenance of highways, free education, free public libraries, and free defense of the homeland.

I don't think people realize that 5.4% of the federal budget is spent on something that can be considered a social welfare "entitlement" program (SSI, Food Stamps, Housing Certificates, Unemployment, and WIC). More than twice that is spent just paying the interest on the national debt. It's one of the biggest red herrings in the history of politics that the Republican party has so effectively managed to scapegoat the poor of this country as being the source of wasteful government spending. It's even more egregious that the budget of every single government agency is public information. I didn't read this anywhere. I just went to the CBO website, downloaded all the information, counted, and calculated the percentages myself. Any person on the planet with internet access could have done that, but they're happy to rely on politicians telling us that social programs are what drive our tax rates up.

 

[WarPhalange]

If you think the government has already blown too much money, get ready for programs such as free healthcare to go through. Too many people in the country expect to be handed a free ride. Believing that they deserve this, deserve that. Owed this, owed that. Well, you're owed nothing. If you want something you're going to have to pay for it one way or another. What's making this country go down the tubes is the individual believing that they have free reign.

I'd rather blow money on Healthcare than a pointless war in Iraq. It honestly doesn't matter what Healthcare costs, since it won't cost as much as Iraq and it has an actual purpose.

What's making this country go down the tubes is people trying to hoard things for themselves instead of helping out their fellow man when it's necessary.

Ask not what your country can do for you -- ask what you can do for your country

--John F Kennedy

 

[Gokul43201]

Here are some of the comments that gave me that impression:

Thanks for the effort grant. I agree there are some misconceptions evident in those posts (including some you've left out), but it also appears that you've exaggerated them somewhat (though not as much as I'd imagined) to make your case.

As far as SAT scores and academics are concerned, I did get a 760 on the Math (in addition to getting top grades and winning the top science award for the High School). Getting good grades and high SAT scores will get you into MIT. However, it is considerably easier than getting good grades and high SAT scores in addition to participating in sports and a host of other extracurricular activities. By the way, the process of getting a congressman to recommend you (a minimum requirement for acceptance into the service Academies) is no cake walk either. The truth is that getting good grades is much easier if that is all your focus needs to be.

My room mate who was academically disenrolled was not able to balance the academic workload with playing sports every semester and the host of military activities.

That is a fair point, but your previous argument was abaout academics. You began with: "Also, I get the impression that many here grossly underestimate the academic programs at the service academies." So naturally, anyone would think you were making a comparison of academic programs.

 

[russ_watters]

And what happens when they don't?

They get court martialed. See: abu Graib.

And secondly, what happens if an order is "lawful", but immoral?

That question doesn't make any sense.

I wasn't thinking about changing the war. I was thinking simply about personally refusing participate in it due to one's conclusions drawn from critical thinking. If I'm not mistaken, that leads directly to a court martial.

It does. The question of whether or not the war itself is legal is generally considered beyond any particular soldier's pay grade. I already said that.

Do you honestly believe McCain has strong critical thinking skills? And do you believe he is showing himself to be ethical?

Yes.

 

[russ_watters]

I have to agree with the Pion. Its not just a matter of making decisions and getting people behind them but making good decisions and getting the people to support you. After the Iraq invasion Bush quickly lost most of his followers. Definitely not a sign of a good leader.

It turned out he was wrong, so it isn't surprising he lost his followers. But I honestly believe that he honestly believed Iraq still had the WMD.

 

[sketchtrack]

It turned out he was wrong, so it isn't surprising he lost his followers. But I honestly believe that he honestly believed Iraq still had the WMD.

You can't invade countries on a hunch legally, and you could have that same hunch about any country, so should we invade all of them?

 

[mheslep]

I don't think people realize that 5.4% of the federal budget is spent on something that can be considered a social welfare "entitlement" program (SSI, Food Stamps, Housing Certificates, Unemployment, and WIC). More than twice that is spent just paying the interest on the national debt. It's one of the biggest red herrings in the history of politics that the Republican party has so effectively managed to scapegoat the poor of this country as being the source of wasteful government spending. It's even more egregious that the budget of every single government agency is public information. I didn't read this anywhere. I just went to the CBO website, downloaded all the information, counted, and calculated the percentages myself. Any person on the planet with internet access could have done that, but they're happy to rely on politicians telling us that social programs are what drive our tax rates up.

The money is in SSN, Medicaid, and Medicare. Why do you leave those out?

 

[WarPhalange]

It turned out he was wrong, so it isn't surprising he lost his followers. But I honestly believe that he honestly believed Iraq still had the WMD.

That's cute and all, but it's not an excuse nor is your opinion enough to justify his actions, i.e "How do you know what he thought?"

 

[mheslep]

You can't invade countries on a hunch legally, and you could have that same hunch about any country, so should we invade all of them?

First, go get more than a dozen UN security sanctions against your hunch country, then yes you have somewhat of a case.

 

[WarPhalange]

First, go get more than a dozen UN security sanctions against your hunch country, then yes you have somewhat of a case.

Your sentence seems garbled, but I assume you mean if the UN agrees with you, then you can go ahead?

So it's okay to fabricated evidence, as long as you convince enough people?

 

[Gokul43201]

They get court martialed. See: abu Graib.

I wouldn't look at Agu Ghraib as a good example, because of the role of the media. To the best of my knowledge, the following are the sequence of key events:
Jan 2004 - Maj. Gen. Taguba ordered to investigate detention practices in AG
Feb 2004 - Investigation completed
March 3 - Taguba report submitted
Apr 28, 30 - Details (incl. photos) leaked to Hersh/CBS appear on TV (60 Minutes) and internet (newyorker)
May 5 - Specialist Jeremy Sivits, first person charged in connection to AG
After May - others charged and court martialed

Abu Ghraib would have been a better example if the charges didn't all begin within the week following the photos appearing on TV.

But what about Guantanamo? Has anyone been court-martialed there for following orders in violation of the Geneva Conventions? To my knowledge, and I may be completely wrong here, the only member of the Military that has been court-martialed there was JAG LCDR Matthew Diaz, for revealing classified information about Gitmo detainees to the Center for Constitutional Rights.

That question doesn't make any sense.

In what way?

The question of whether or not the war itself is legal is generally considered beyond any particular soldier's pay grade.

So you are only allowed to exercise critical thinking that is commensurate with your pay grade?

 

[Crosson]

I honestly believe that he honestly believed Iraq still had the WMD.

Your probably right, Bush didn't expect to look so foolish as to find no WMD whatsoever.

But even if he thought there were WMD in Iraq, do you really think that's the reason Bush attacked them?

Or might it have something to do with the fact that Iraq has $30T worth of oil in the ground, and that Saddam had come to power on a program of nationalizing iraqi oil i.e. kicked out the American, British, french, and dutch oil companies. Now the exact same companies that Saddam banished in 1980 have been awarded lucrative contracts, and not surprisingly the Chinese, Indian, and Russian oil companies get nothing.

Similarly, the Shiite majority would like to nationalize oil, since it is in their best interest, and that is the real reason that we prop up the Sunnis in a kind of non-democracy that supports US interests.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It turned out he was wrong, so it isn't surprising he lost his followers. But I honestly believe that he honestly believed Iraq still had the WMD.

Perhaps he did but flying on data that is bogus and or fabricated with little to no coroberation? Having advisors that supply him with such information and, worse yet, not getting rid of them? Then continuing to advocate the rightuousness of his actions instead of admitting error?
Sorry but it seems like more reasons to believe he is a bad leader.

 

[LightbulbSun]

That's an extreme interpretation of the a typical military personnel. You obviously have no grasp whatsoever of the military, so I guess it's easy to call it whatever you like. Until you experience it, you do not know.

You're right, I don't. I don't care about wars that don't make any sense. Just tell all of your fellow friends to stop feeding me the ******** line that it's a war on freedom. It's not, it's a war on oil. That's all that needs to be said. Maybe instead of wasting resources on something so useless like Iraq, you could save it for when we'll actually need it. You know, real threats, that are constant. Not some isolated breach in security (9/11).

Terrorism isn't something you can prevent. It will always be around. It's not like you can defeat a single militia and declare you've defeated the terrorists. That's the way it will always be. I hope you realize this.

If you believe that every aspect of the military involves dropping bombs, that in it's self is proof of the ignorance.

I don't believe that at all. I do think we're at a point in our history where we can solve some of our problems with other options that don't require warfare. Some will still need warfare, but I view warfare as a last resort.

Regular people (you) aren't being treated like turds! How are you being treated so badly? Explain. Remember that EVERY single military personnel was a civillian at one time and VERY many are now. I'm not getting upset, I seriously want to understand what the military has personally done to you to make you feel so bad. I'm all ears.

By creating false dichotomies such as "you're either with us or a terrorist." Creating stupid slogans like "he's fighting so you can wear that stupid anti-war shirt." That's kind of implying slavery isn't it? Should we become slaves on a plantation now because you decided to enlist in the military? Or my favorite tactic of them all, if you don't view warfare as the only option then you're spineless. Right. Spare me.

I'll be the first one to tell you that if the draft still existed and I were drafted that I would be terrified. Violence isn't my thing. Maybe the adrenaline would make me forget my fears, but I doubt it. This is why I would never enlist. I value my life too much.

 

[phyzmatix]

That question doesn't make any sense.

:uhh:

Of course that question makes sense.

It just depends on one's personal interpretation of morality, e.g. in some states the death penalty is legal but some would argue it's immoral (which would make it lawful, yet immoral).

The same goes for abortion, and that's only two I can think of right now, so Gokul's claim that something can be considered immoral yet lawful at the same is perfectly legitimate.

 

[BobG]

Could you please quote/name the posts where these specific misconceptions were displayed?

It's one thing to say that the AFA has a strong academic program, but completely silly to compare it with MIT - you've just hurt your credibility by doing that.

Incidentally, the mid-range SAT math scores for AFA admits is http://www.academyadmissions.com/admissions/preparation/academic_prep.php .

I agree that the Air Force Academy won't win a comparison with MIT. Still, even comparing Math SAT scores between the two is a little misleading.

The AFA is among the top engineering schools in the country, but only a fraction of AFA students major in engineering. A lot of students major in "softer" subjects.

If you want a really skewed result, compare the science education of the non-engineering students to other business schools, liberal arts schools, etc. No AFA students escape getting some science and engineering education. I think the Air Force Academy non-engineering students have a better engineering background than non-engineering students at other universities.

I don't think math and science would do much good for a person pursuing a degree in history or literature, but a lot of law schools and business management programs could benefit quite a bit by copying the AFA approach to education. At least some science and math skills are necessary just to interact with today's technologies, let alone design, operate, and manage them.

 

[Gokul43201]

I agree that the Air Force Academy won't win a comparison with MIT. Still, even comparing Math SAT scores between the two is a little misleading.

The links also allow you to compare verbal scores. Again mean MIT scores are nearly 100 points higher than mean AFA scores. And that's despite the fact that only a tiny fraction of MIT students major in Humanities and Arts.

 

[mheslep]

I agree that the Air Force Academy won't win a comparison with MIT. Still, even comparing Math SAT scores between the two is a little misleading.

The AFA is among the top engineering schools in the country, but only a fraction of AFA students major in engineering. A lot of students major in "softer" subjects.

If you want a really skewed result, compare the science education of the non-engineering students to other business schools, liberal arts schools, etc. No AFA students escape getting some science and engineering education. I think the Air Force Academy non-engineering students have a better engineering background than non-engineering students at other universities.

I don't think math and science would do much good for a person pursuing a degree in history or literature, but a lot of law schools and business management programs could benefit quite a bit by copying the AFA approach to education. At least some science and math skills are necessary just to interact with today's technologies, let alone design, operate, and manage them.

The links also allow you to compare verbal scores. Again mean MIT scores are nearly 100 points higher than mean AFA scores. And that's despite the fact that only a tiny fraction of MIT students major in Humanities and Arts.

Other things being equal, I always give an edge to graduates of a good engineering / science four year college vs a top university where inevitably the undergraduates are coasting in part on the reputation earned primarily by the graduate studies programs and faculty. At a four year school like the AFA the undergrads are necessarily taught by faculty, not by underpaid and overworked T/A's. SAT scores are about the aptitude displayed by a student before college; as an employer I want to know what they learned after they arrived.

 

[Gokul43201]

But I honestly believe that he honestly believed Iraq still had the WMD.

A wise man - let's call him russ_watters - once said: "To me, the distinction between lying to/misleading others due to self-delusion (pathological science) and actual conscious fraud is mostly just hairsplitting..."

 

[B. Elliott]

You're right, I don't. I don't care about wars that don't make any sense. Just tell all of your fellow friends to stop feeding me the ******** line that it's a war on freedom. It's not, it's a war on oil. That's all that needs to be said. Maybe instead of wasting resources on something so useless like Iraq, you could save it for when we'll actually need it. You know, real threats, that are constant. Not some isolated breach in security (9/11).

Terrorism isn't something you can prevent. It will always be around. It's not like you can defeat a single militia and declare you've defeated the terrorists. That's the way it will always be. I hope you realize this.



I don't believe that at all. I do think we're at a point in our history where we can solve some of our problems with other options that don't require warfare. Some will still need warfare, but I view warfare as a last resort.





By creating false dichotomies such as "you're either with us or a terrorist." Creating stupid slogans like "he's fighting so you can wear that stupid anti-war shirt." That's kind of implying slavery isn't it? Should we become slaves on a plantation now because you decided to enlist in the military? Or my favorite tactic of them all, if you don't view warfare as the only option then you're spineless. Right. Spare me.

I'll be the first one to tell you that if the draft still existed and I were drafted that I would be terrified. Violence isn't my thing. Maybe the adrenaline would make me forget my fears, but I doubt it. This is why I would never enlist. I value my life too much.

When did I ever mention that I'm in support of the war in Iraq? When did I mention that I'm a Bush supporter? When did I mention that I believe we can stop terrorism?

 

[LowlyPion]

But I honestly believe that he honestly believed Iraq still had the WMD.

[/Start_Opinion]I honestly believe he believed what he wanted to believe because it fit his agenda and he and Cheney and Rove decided to stop looking in case their thin case of trumped up allegations would no longer serve their purpose.

Plausible Deniability - Executive branch prerogative.

The architects of Bush policy would hold other governments accountable for their actions like WMDs, even when they were apparently operating on unproved allegations, guaranteeing the loss of thousands of lives, but were ever so content to cover up and throw subordinates to the wood chipper to avoid their own accountability. RIP Scooter Libby - you served your masters well.

While McCain has been loyal to his party, he looks to have made a deal that lost him his soul. [/End_Opinion]

 

[sketchtrack]

You know, McCain is old, and he doesn't have a whole long time to live. What does he have to gain out of a presidency, he is already rich. Who is to say he isn't planning on sticking it the Bushes and so forth once elected. Maybe he is going to try and do something very patriotic and not just act as a puppet. For a man like McCain who has nothing more left to lose other than what people remember him for, why make a fool out of yourself like Bush did?