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

[turbo]

Immediately after 9/11 Bush demanded that the intelligence agencies look for a way to tie Iraq to the attack. It went downhill from there. Bush/Rove/Cheney/Wolfowitz et al knew they were feeding us lies. Bush may be an incurious dullard, but even he could not have been stupid enough to believe that the cooked-up "intelligence" he demanded to justify the invasion of Iraq was real.

http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/04/20/woodward_clarke/index.html

 

[sketchtrack]

For John McCain though, there is a difference. McCain was kind of an outsider to the whole cooked up information scandal business. I have the feeling, that for McCain, if he didn't agree on the war, the he would have been made out to look real bad if there had been WMD given that he was advised there was.

 

[LowlyPion]

... why make a fool out of yourself like Bush did?

Bush of course was likely predisposed to do more than his dad did in Iraq. If you recall Desert Storm was criticized for not going all the way to Baghdad and leaving Sadam in power. Dad was weak - son must be strong?

As to why men seek the office ... you might as well ask why people seek power at all. I must view anyone with suspicion that solicits such power. I can't picture McCain as an altruist with his seeking to be president.

I can certainly picture him as duped however, duped as the country was misled, and while that doesn't earn him blame for the US being there, it is certainly to my thinking not to his credit to want to stay. Wouldn't a hero take an unpopular stand? Do what he thought was right instead of expedient?

 

[B. Elliott]

I can certainly picture him as duped however, duped as the country was misled, and while that doesn't earn him blame for the US being there, it is certainly to my thinking not to his credit to want to stay. Wouldn't a hero take an unpopular stand? Do what he thought was right instead of expedient?

Or as sketchtrack said, he could be using his potential to gain presidency to actually be a hero and make a good change. But then again, it does come down to ones opinion of 'good change'.

 

[Crosson]

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?

How can you be in favor of the US military and not support its primary (based on expense) war project (Iraq) or its leader (Bush) ? If this is how our soldiers feel, then I wish that one of them would organize a coup, because until then they are completely guilty and acting in bad faith by carrying out this brutal and wasteful war under the lame excuse that they are "just following orders."

The problem with John Mccain is that he says one thing and brazenly does another. How dare anyone call someone a "hero" who cheats on his first wife Carol with rich Cindy, 15 years his junior! I can't believe the harsh talk Mccain spews about drug users, when Cindy herself was using hardcore narcotic painkillers throughout the 1980s, stolen from a charity they shared. He doesn't support torture, but he votes to approve waterboarding!

 

[B. Elliott]

How can you be in favor of the US military and not support its primary (based on expense) war project (Iraq) or its leader (Bush) ? If this is how our soldiers feel, then I wish that one of them would organize a coup, because until then they are completely guilty and acting in bad faith by carrying out this brutal and wasteful war under the lame excuse that they are "just following orders."

It's a simple matter of one having an opinion. I know plenty of people (including myself at times) that do not fully agree with certain actions that their employer have made, yet we continue to work for them.

It's easy to not understand if you're not one in that position.

 

[B. Elliott]

That is yet another example of the preconceived 'zombie-minded' way of thinking which many people assume that those who are in the armed forces possess. Pure inexperienced assumptions.

 

[Crosson]

It's a simple matter of one having an opinion. I know plenty of people (including myself at times) that do not fully agree with certain actions that their employer have made, yet we continue to work for them.

The situation with the military is different from "not fully agreeing with your employer." The US military has killed thousands of innocent iraqi civilians, spent hundreds of billions of dollars, to achieve arguably no benefit for the US. Soldiers who commit these atrocities, but claim to dissent, are acting out of cowardice, being unwilling to stand up for what they say they believe in.

It's easy to not understand if you're not one in that position.

I understand, but I don't respect anyone who kills innocent people even though they know that what they are doing is wrong and without merit.

That is yet another example of the preconceived 'zombie-minded' way of thinking which many people assume that those who are in the armed forces possess. Pure inexperienced assumptions.

I do think that military personnel and families have a hard time even facing the idea that their service was a waste of time and money. Sometimes this causes them to be zombie-minded, I've seen it. For example, there are no WMDs in Iraq and the iraqi murder rate is 10 times higher then pre-2003 levels, while the Iraq GDP has still not recovered to pre-2003 levels.

Can you admit that the Iraq war was a waste of time and money?

I have known lots of people who were in the military. Some of them were just dumb; they liked guns and machinery but didn't care about politics or morality. Some of them thought it would be a ticket to money, but decided it was a pain in the *** and that some of the conditioning was negative.

I also knew someone who quit the military, dishonorable discharge, when they interrogated him under the influence of powerful psychedelic drugs, which he was only told about 5 minutes before they were injected, as part of a training exercise.

I also spent time around an old 'frogman', elite scuba forces. He had a lot of interesting stories about covert operations all over the world. Lots of stories of being drugged, or otherwise abused with laughably short warning, by commanding officers. His overall attitude towards the armed forces is still positive, but he outright confirms that the training involves brainwashing people to be killers.

 

[Gokul43201]

For John McCain though, there is a difference. McCain was kind of an outsider to the whole cooked up information scandal business.

I agree, but then, so was most everyone outside the Executive branch.

I have the feeling, that for McCain, if he didn't agree on the war, the he would have been made out to look real bad if there had been WMD given that he was advised there was.

Probably, but I think McCain was not really the kind of person to do the politically expedient thing back then. I'm just as likely to believe that McCain simply trusted the White House and chose not to exercise his famous powers of critical thinking.

But now that he's running for President, things seem to have changed. He has now chosen to be a part of the team that serves up the cooking.

Here's an example:

CNN’S JOHN ROBERTS: I wanted to talk to you about the situation in Iraq. Yesterday in an interview with Wolf Blitzer on The Situation Room. I want to play this back for you. You had this to say about the situation there.

[McCAIN CLIP - http://thinkprogress.org/2007/03/28/roberts-cnn-mccain-iraq/]: General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed humvee. I think you oughta catch up. You are giving the old line of three months ago. I understand it. We certainly don’t get it through the filter of some of the media.
...
ROBERTS: Because I checked with General Petraeus’s people overnight and they said he never goes out in anything less than an up-armored humvee.

It would be so much easier to support McCain if starting around a couple years ago he just vanished for a while - stayed away from not only the Senate floor (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/23/939359.aspx ) but also away from TV cameras, radio stations and reporters.

 

[Gokul43201]

It's a simple matter of one having an opinion. I know plenty of people (including myself at times) that do not fully agree with certain actions that their employer have made, yet we continue to work for them.

But if you find you have irreconcilable differences, you can just give your employer notice and leave. Try doing that in the Navy!
(I mean "don't")

 

[B. Elliott]

The situation with the military is different from "not fully agreeing with your employer." The US military has killed thousands of innocent iraqi civilians, spent hundreds of billions of dollars, to achieve arguably no benefit for the US. Soldiers who commit these atrocities, but claim to dissent, are acting out of cowardice, being unwilling to stand up for what they say they believe in.

No. It's no different what so ever. If you join the military, you are under contract. Just as any other contract, if you break it, you suffer consequences. When someone signs the contract, they better be fully aware of what they are committing to. Killing 'innocent Iraqi civilians' is not one of the goals of the military. I don't know here you get this goal from. With any conflict there will be an unintentional loss of civilian lives. The military is constantly striving to minimize that loss.

I understand, but I don't respect anyone who kills innocent people even though they know that what they are doing is wrong and without merit.

Again you're bringing up innocent Iraqis. The killing of innocents is not an objective. If they do not agree with the conflict, bit that does not necessarily believe what they are doing is wrong. They may believe that it can be handled a different way, which may still involve the loss of lives.

The ideas your bringing up are hypothetical and vary greatly from individual to individual. You can not generalize as easily as you're wanting to.

I do think that military personnel and families have a hard time even facing the idea that their service was a waste of time and money. Sometimes this causes them to be zombie-minded, I've seen it. For example, there are no WMDs in Iraq and the iraqi murder rate is 10 times higher then pre-2003 levels, while the Iraq GDP has still not recovered to pre-2003 levels.

Again this is going to vary from family to family, soldier to soldier. You stated that this sometimes causes them to be zombie-minded. This is true, sometimes, but not ALL the time.

Can you admit that the Iraq war was a waste of time and money?

I have already admitted to this since I stated that I do not agree with it. I believe that it could be handled a different way, but since I'm not aware of every single aspect of what's going on over there, I'm not in a position to make decisions such as that. I can agree that something is a waste of time and money, but if it is proving me with something I am needing, I will consider using it to may advantage.

I have known lots of people who were in the military. Some of them were just dumb; they liked guns and machinery but didn't care about politics or morality. Some of them thought it would be a ticket to money, but decided it was a pain in the *** and that some of the conditioning was negative.

And those just some. I know a few technicians and chemists who are also pretty dumb. They just liked playing with electronics and chemistry, but don't care much about politics or morality. You can't use a few to make generalizations about the whole.

I also knew someone who quit the military, dishonorable discharge, when they interrogated him under the influence of powerful psychedelic drugs, which he was only told about 5 minutes before they were injected, as part of a training exercise.

I also spent time around an old 'frogman', elite scuba forces. He had a lot of interesting stories about covert operations all over the world. Lots of stories of being drugged, or otherwise abused with laughably short warning, by commanding officers. His overall attitude towards the armed forces is still positive, but he outright confirms that the training involves brainwashing people to be killers.

Yes, certain divisions of the armed forces involves VERY strong conditioning because that's part of the training for that division. Not all divisions of the armed forces are faced with the same conditioning, training and decisions. The 'brainwashing' which he was describing is how he interpreted the conditioning for that specific job in that specific division of the armed forces.

Not all military jobs are the same. Every division is also not the same (Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, Army, Air Force). Generalizing every division of the armed forces is again showing lack of knowledge of how they operate.

 

[B. Elliott]

But if you find you have irreconcilable differences, you can just give your employer notice and leave. Try doing that in the Navy!
(I mean "don't")

As I stated in my previous post, you can leave. You will be faced with a dishonorable discharge. The military does not want you if you do not want to stay in it and be a part of it. As with any other contract you sign, you are faced with consequences if you break it.

 

[Gokul43201]

As I stated in my previous post, you can leave. You will be faced with a dishonorable discharge. The military does not want you if you do not want to stay in it and be a part of it. As with any other contract you sign, you are faced with consequences if you break it.

To the best of my knowledge a conscientious objector is not allowed to leave on grounds of disagreeing with specific actions.

Yup, here we go: http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/generalinfo/a/getout_4.htm

In order to find that an applicant's moral and ethical beliefs are against participation in war in any form and are held with the strength of traditional religious convictions, the applicant must show that these moral and ethical convictions, once acquired, have directed his life in the way traditional religious convictions of equal strength, depth and duration have directed the lives of those whose beliefs are clearly found in traditional religious convictions.

The burden of establishing a claim of conscientious objection as grounds for separation is on the applicant. To this end, applicants must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the nature or basis of the claim comes within the definition of criteria prescribed by DoD Directive 1300.6, Conscientious Objectors for conscientious objection and that their beliefs are sincere.

Sincerity is determined by an impartial evaluation of the applicant's thinking and living in its totality, past and present. Information presented by the claimant must be sufficient to convince the commander that the claimant's personal history reveals views and actions strong enough to demonstrate that expediency or avoidance of military service is not the basis of his claim.

When evaluating applications for CO status, commanders consider relevant factors including: training in the home and church; general demeanor and pattern of conduct; participation in religious activities; whether ethical or moral convictions were gained through training, study, contemplation, or other activity comparable in rigor and dedication to the processes by which traditional religious convictions are formulated; credibility of the applicant; and credibility of persons supporting the claim.

Also, to the best of my knowledge, your contract with the military is for a minimum of 8 years. That's a little longer than the typical civilian contract.

PS: I can't remember what this particular discussion started on, so I'm just kinda rambling now.

 

[B. Elliott]

To the best of my knowledge a conscientious objector is not allowed to leave on grounds of disagreeing with specific actions.

Yup, here we go: http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/generalinfo/a/getout_4.htm

Also, to the best of my knowledge, your contract with the military is for a minimum of 8 years. That's a little longer than the typical civilian contract.

PS: I can't remember what this particular discussion started on, so I'm just kinda rambling now.

My uncle was allowed to be dishonorably discharged for choosing to become a Jehovah's Witness.

There are ways out.

 

[Crosson]

Generalizing every division of the armed forces is again showing lack of knowledge of how they operate.

You are attacking a straw man. I absolutely never claimed that anything was true for 'everyone' in the military.

No. It's no different what so ever. If you join the military, you are under contract.

You get on my case for generalizing the divisions of the armed forces into a single concept of 'the military', but meanwhile you generalize all contracts to be equivalent, even ones that require you to kill people? Is there really no difference between a contract that obligates me to kill people, and one that doesn't? This just shows your lack of knowledge of how contracts operate.

Again you're bringing up innocent Iraqis. The killing of innocents is not an objective.

Why does it matter if they do it on purpose? Murdering innocent people is wrong, and in Iraq it serves no purpose. Any soldier who stays in Iraq knowing that he will contribute to pointless civilian deaths is either, dumb, unethical, or plain scared to do the right thing.

Killing 'innocent Iraqi civilians' is not one of the goals of the military. I don't know here you get this goal from.

I never said it was a goal, I said that by joining the military they have a high chance (probability) of killing an innocent civilian directly with a bullet, and that is only one of a long list reasons why joining the military is wrong and unethical.

 

[B. Elliott]

You get on my case for generalizing the divisions of the armed forces into a single concept of 'the military', but meanwhile you generalize all contracts to be equivalent, even ones that require you to kill people? Is there really no difference between a contract that obligates me to kill people, and one that doesn't? This just shows your lack of knowledge of how contracts operate.

All contracts are the same! You sign your name and dedicate your time for X amount of time and after which, you are free of the contract. That's how every single military contract works! You can nitpick all you want, but they are all the same. If one entails swimming for miles up a river to slit the throats of enemies who are holding an American soldier hostage, it's no different than someone else signing a contract to install telecommunications lines in a remote building in Washington state.

A contract is a contract!

Why does it matter if they do it on purpose? Murdering innocent people is wrong, and in Iraq it serves no purpose. Any soldier who stays in Iraq knowing that he will contribute to pointless civilian deaths is either, dumb, unethical, or plain scared to do the right thing.

Murdering innocent people is not a goal of the military. Why do you keep saying this as if it's an objective? You're generalizing.

I never said it was a goal, I said that by joining the military they have a high chance (probability) of killing an innocent civilian directly with a bullet, and that is only one of a long list reasons why joining the military is wrong and unethical.

You're generalizing. Not every division has a 'high chance' of killing innocent people. Aircraft mechanics don't kill people. Telecomm technicians don't kill people. Transport pilots don't kill people, military dentists don't kill people, military physicians don't kill people, military engineers don't kill people, military electronics technicians don't kill people, emergency fire and rescue units don't kill people... shall I continue? That's only .1% of the jobs!

 

[B. Elliott]

And if you say that by simply joining the military I'm contributing to the killing, do you realize the by paying your taxes you're contributing to the killing of 'innocent people'?

 

[Crosson]

All contracts are the same! You sign your name and dedicate your time for X amount of time and after which, you are free of the contract. That's how every single military contract works! You can nitpick all you want, but they are all the same. If one entails swimming for miles up a river to slit the throats of enemies who are holding an American soldier hostage, it's no different than someone else signing a contract to install telecommunications lines in a remote building in Washington state.

A contract is a contract!

Honoring the contract is unimportant compared to the importance of not supporting an unjust and illegal war. Kofi Annan of the U.N. says that the U.S. did not follow the laws of the U.N. charter, almost a direct statement that the war was illegal, but U.S. troops had neither the strength or the courage to stand against their wrong and evil orders from President Bush.

Do you think that "I was honoring my contract" is a good excuse for supporting an illegal and unjust war?

Murdering innocent people is not a goal of the military. Why do you keep saying this as if it's an objective? You're generalizing.

Its not an objective, but it is an important part of the job description --- unless it is simply not talked about.

U.S. forces in Iraq have killed over 50,000 Iraqi civilians, and by some estimates they have actually killed hundreds of thousands. To the extent that these deaths were 'unintended' we should admit that the personnel involved were grossly negligent.

There may one day be a military mission that justifies this kind of mass murder, but clearly the war in Iraq does not.

You're generalizing. Not every division has a 'high chance' of killing innocent people.

That's right, but unfortunately that's how probability works: it allows you to generalize. Not every division has as high of a chance of killing people, but the military is such that the average person who joins after 2001 has a much higher chance of killing innocent people than the average person who doesn't join.

 

[Jordan Joab]

Honoring the contract is unimportant compared to the importance of not supporting an unjust and illegal war. Kofi Annan of the U.N. says that the U.S. did not follow the laws of the U.N. charter, almost a direct statement that the war was illegal, but U.S. troops had neither the strength or the courage to stand against their wrong and evil orders from President Bush.

Do you think that "I was honoring my contract" is a good excuse for supporting an illegal and unjust war?



Its not an objective, but it is an important part of the job description --- unless it is simply not talked about.

U.S. forces in Iraq have killed over 50,000 Iraqi civilians, and by some estimates they have actually killed hundreds of thousands. To the extent that these deaths were 'unintended' we should admit that the personnel involved were grossly negligent.

There may one day be a military mission that justifies this kind of mass murder, but clearly the war in Iraq does not.



That's right, but unfortunately that's how probability works: it allows you to generalize. Not every division has as high of a chance of killing people, but the military is such that anyone who joins after 2001 has a much higher chance of killing innocent people than anyone who doesn't join.

You just insulted me but I respect your opinion.



Jordan.

 

[Crosson]

And if you say that by simply joining the military I'm contributing to the killing, do you realize the by paying your taxes you're contributing to the killing of 'innocent people'?

I claim an exemption on my federal tax return for the war in Iraq, and I have also given basically that same amount of money to charities that claim to support the reconstruction of Iraq. These are reparations to account for myself being a part of a country that did something wrong.

I will stay an American citizen only because I am awestruck by the greatness of our 'founding fathers' and the constitution. I believe in this country, but I do not blindly support all of its endeavors.

 

[Crosson]

You just insulted me but I respect your opinion.

Jordan.

I apologize. I want to also mention that I don't think anyone is characterized forever by a single action, and so any judgements I make are about actions but not about people (in other words, tomorrow is another day).

 

[B. Elliott]

I will stay an American citizen only because I am awestruck by the greatness of our 'founding fathers' and the constitution. I believe in this country...

And those are one of the many reasons why I have joined the military. I joined so that I can help to protect this country from any force which attempts to compromise it. If it entails doing something that I don't fully agree with, well, that's just too bad.

I'm joining so that you can continue to express the opinion which you have.

 

[Jordan Joab]

I apologize. I want to also mention that I don't think anyone is characterized forever by a single action, and so any judgements I make are about actions but not about people (in other words, tomorrow is another day).

No need to apologize, friend. Allow me to clear something up though. When military members sign the contract they are required to follow lawful orders. A military member may disobey an order if he/she considers it is unlawful. The problem is said member needs to prove why the order was unlawful.

So, in order for a military member to object to going to Irak or anywhere else if they think it is an unlawful order they need to prove it. I think you can imagine how difficult that is.

A personal example:

My crew and I were ordered to re-install a bomb rack back on a F-16's pylon another crew could not finish installing. We head over to the aircraft only to find there is not Technical Order (manuals we follow to fix the plane). No T.O. = cannot work on plane.

Expediter (supervisor - normally Tech Sarge E6) arrives and starts yelling at us to mount the rack. We refuse for obvious reasons. Expediter leaves and goes to Section Chief. After we mounted the rack (we got the T.O.) Section Chief wants to have a word with us. We explain the situation and are free to go. Expediter gets slap on the wrist. Another day in the USAF.
Jordan.

 

[Crosson]

I'm joining so that you can continue to express the opinion which you have.

Don't worry about me, if there was actually a threat to my free speech then I would instantly take up arms to fight it. That is a far way off from where we are now, or where we have ever been since Jefferson.

The problem is said member needs to prove why the order was unlawful.

Thank you for sharing your knowledge of the process. I wonder if 'legal' can be interpreted as based on international law, as defined by the UN charter? If so, then it looks like a case could be made:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm"

I also want to share my personal knowledge, having known several people who have been dishonorably discharged, is that if you are willing to go quietly then it is no big deal. You can fake a back injury, for example. But trying to make a principled statement about leaving because of injustice is much more difficult, along the lines that Jordan suggests.

 

[sketchtrack]

If nobody ever joined the military, then they would start the draft or the U.S. would fall and some other country would be governing the us You should be thanking people who join so that you have the right to not join.

 

[B. Elliott]

Don't worry about me, if there was actually a threat to my free speech then I would instantly take up arms to fight it. That is a far way off from where we are now, or where we have ever been since Jefferson.

Not just a threat to free speech, but a threat to the entire country which is providing you free speech.

 

[B. Elliott]

If nobody ever joined the military, then they would start the draft or the U.S. would fall and some other country would be governing the us You should be thanking people who join so that you have the right to not join.

Thankyou sketchtrack.

Support the soldiers. You don't have to agree with the war.

 

[Crosson]

If nobody ever joined the military, then they would start the draft or the U.S. would fall and some other country would be governing the us You should be thanking people who join so that you have the right to not join.

Again, if there was any threat to the US then I would fight against that threat, and support others to do the same.

I don't thank the people that sign up to fight in an unjust war, since if no one signed up we would not have pre-emptively attacked Iraq.

Support the soldiers. You don't have to agree with the war.

If you support the soldiers then you are supporting the war, even if you don't agree with it.

The soldiers have the power to cease the war in Iraq, but they don't, so I don't support them.

 

[Jordan Joab]

Thank you for sharing your knowledge of the process. I wonder if 'legal' can be interpreted as based on international law, as defined by the UN charter? If so, then it looks like a case could be made:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm"

I also want to share my personal knowledge, having known several people who have been dishonorably discharged, is that if you are willing to go quietly then it is no big deal. You can fake a back injury, for example. But trying to make a principled statement about leaving because of injustice is much more difficult, along the lines that Jordan suggests.

It's bad. Check these out:

It's clear, under military law, that military members can be held accountable for crimes committed under the guise of "obeying orders," and there is no requirement to obey orders which are unlawful. However, here's the rub: A military member disobeys such orders at his/her own peril. Ultimately, it's not whether or not the military member thinks the order is illegal or unlawful, it's whether military superiors (and courts) think the order was illegal or unlawful.

http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/militarylaw1/a/obeyingorders_2.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Defense



Jordan.

 

[B. Elliott]

Again, if there was any threat to the US then I would fight against that threat, and support others to do the same.

I don't thank the people that sign up to fight in an unjust war, since if no one signed up we would not have pre-emptively attacked Iraq.



If you support the soldiers then you are supporting the war, even if you don't agree with it.

The soldiers have the power to cease the war in Iraq, but they don't, so I don't support them.

OK, everything is completely clear now. I see your view.

 

[sketchtrack]

So you think we should give up and drop all of our defensive positions.

 

[Crosson]

So you think we should give up and drop all of our defensive positions.

Where did you learn to ask 'questions' like this, Fox News?

Obviously we will never give up our real defensive position: the nation itself. The territory of the US mainland.

Stop buying into the neocon idea that preemptive wars on the other side of the world are necessary for defense. This is just a way for them to take money from taxpayers and give it to their cronies.

As for 'give up', I don't know what you are referring to. If you mean to 'give up' this embarrassing folly in Iraq, then sure as long as that means we stop spending money there.

Look at how difficult it has been for our expensive army to occupy Iraq, and compare that to how difficult it would be for any other country's military to invade and occupy the US, considering the number of people that own guns and know how to use them. This means that we can massively scale back our military and still be ready to win against any real threats, it would only leave us unable to fight 'money wars' for the profit of sleazy politicians.

 

[mheslep]

Don't worry about me, if there was actually a threat to my free speech then I would instantly take up arms to fight it. That is a far way off from where we are now, or where we have ever been since Jefferson...

Well its likely that by the time you unilaterally decide to pick up your musket and march off to Concord it will all be over.

 

[sketchtrack]

Where did you learn to ask 'questions' like this, Fox News?

Obviously we will never give up our real defensive position: the nation itself. The territory of the US mainland.

Stop buying into the neocon idea that preemptive wars on the other side of the world are necessary for defense. This is just a way for them to take money from taxpayers and give it to their cronies.

As for 'give up', I don't know what you are referring to. If you mean to 'give up' this embarrassing folly in Iraq, then sure as long as that means we stop spending money there.

Look at how difficult it has been for our expensive army to occupy Iraq, and compare that to how difficult it would be for any other country's military to invade and occupy the US, considering the number of people that own guns and know how to use them. This means that we can massively scale back our military and still be ready to win against any real threats, it would only leave us unable to fight 'money wars' for the profit of sleazy politicians.

Find a Nation which has no military, and then move there.

You know that there are solders in lots and lots of countries world wide. There are solders in submarines, there are solders protecting our airspace, there are ships protecting trade routs. There are people spying on Russia and China so that if one day they decide to attack us, we will know and warn them not to.

If there was none of this, then you would not have a country to live in. You wouldn't be able to go to any other country as well because it is the same no matter where you go. Any country you could choose to live in is only a country and only has freedom because the military provides it. No matter which way you paint it, you are free loading off of the people who make it happen, and they provide you with the right to do so by signing up themselves. It is completely childish to hammer on the people who grant you your right to live.

 

[Crosson]

Find a Nation which has no military, and then move there.

Why shouldn't I just work to change my country for the better?

I could just as easily tell President Bush and his supporters to move to another country where torture and warrant-less wiretapping are legal, instead of dishonoring my country.

You know that there are solders in lots and lots of countries world wide. There are solders in submarines, there are solders protecting our airspace, there are ships protecting trade routs. There are people spying on Russia and China so that if one day they decide to attack us, we will know and warn them not to.

I know there are soldiers all over the world, but I do not agree that they are necessary for our protection.

Any country you could choose to live in is only a country and only has freedom because the military provides it.

No, every man is born free. Violence and militarism only take away peoples freedom.

No matter which way you paint it, you are free loading off of the people who make it happen, and they provide you with the right to do so by signing up themselves. It is completely childish to hammer on the people who grant you your right to live.

Grant me the right to live? Get off your high horse, and put away the superiority complex. I don't need anyone to 'grant me the right to live' because that right is inalienable, it says so in the US constitution.

If you think the government is responsible for giving us rights, then you don't have a clue about the founding fathers.

If you think this country has ever been in danger of an invasion, then you don't understand US history (or world politics, military conflict and colonization). As for that irritating 'we would all be speaking german' nonsense, try to give me one example of a country as large as this one having its culture and language replaced within 100 years by an occupying nation? The most similar example would be the British occupation of India, but that only worked because the Indians didn't have guns and the British did! And in case you didn't notice they are still speaking hindi after 400 years of occupation.

In America the entire country is a militia, what do we have to fear?

Find the courage to live without being so afraid of death that you will pay anything for 'protection' from your 'enemies.' I am not afraid. And please drop your brainwashed recital about how they 'granted me life', that is truly repulsive.