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

[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.

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?

 

[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.