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

[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.

 

[sketchtrack]

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.



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



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



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.

I was talking about a legal right to live.

 

[sketchtrack]

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



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

We were very close to becoming a nation who speaks german. Our founding fathers actually voted on it, and English barely won the vote.

If your right to live comes from the constitution, then you don't just have it. Think about it, if we had no military, then we would have no constitution and you would have no legal rights.

 

[Crosson]

If your right to live comes from the constitution, then you don't just have it.

No, the constitution says that the right to life is 'inalienable'. Our rights do not 'come from the constitution', the constitution enumerates the rights that we already have for the benefit of the lawmakers so that they do not get confused and try to contradict our rights. Maybe you should read the constitution, it sounds like you never have.

Think about it, if we had no military, then we would have no constitution and you would have no legal rights.

Why do you believe this? Do you think the US is vulnerable to an invasion or occupation by any other country? It's not even close. Look at how easy it was to topple Saddam's army, and look at how that didn't matter: even the US military in its current state cannot defeat a defensive local militia. In other words, no country in the world could invade and occupy America considering how strongly our civilians are armed and how much territory we have. No country would even attempt it!

So what are you so afraid of, that the military protects you from and grants you the right to live?

 

[sketchtrack]

Why are we not vulnerable? Do you think we would be if we didn't hold any defensive positions, if we were out gunned by our enemies, if we had no line of defense.

The reason we are not threatened is because we are backed by the protection of the military.

 

[sketchtrack]

Some things go unsaid because they are just ugly but they are reality.

1) We cannot live without resources. We need things to support the country and the way of life. We need food, we need minerals, we need all kinds of things. Most wars are really fought over resources. Even in world war 2, much of the battles were over resources, and it was in a big part our victories and world resource holdings that aloud us to win.

There are covert wars happening all over the place all the time. The main goal of all of this is control over resources.

2) We have competition in this war for resources. The balance of Power lies in controlling resources, and it is important that we don't let people who wish to destroy us dominate the worlds resources.

3) It is sad for poor counties with weak military might because they get the short end of the stick. A county is only as "good" as its rights to resources..

4) There is an increasing demand for resources as the world becomes more and more overpopulated. One day, there will be no where near enough resources for everyone. This is actually already beginning to happen. Countries who cannot defend there rights to resources will perish, and starvation and poverty as well as manny rights will be no longer be had.

 

[WarPhalange]

Does having served in Vietnam make it okay for this kind of stuff?

 

[B. Elliott]

Why are we not vulnerable? Do you think we would be if we didn't hold any defensive positions, if we were out gunned by our enemies, if we had no line of defense.

The reason we are not threatened is because we are backed by the protection of the military.

As much as people would like to completely ignore the importance of having a strong military, a strong military is actually the backbone which allows them to have the freedoms which they have. If we lived in a fantasy world where everyone could just work and 'live their lives' without fear of another invader taking over, that would be fine and dandy, but this is the real world. There is such a thing as a superior military, and that potentially superior military is THE one and only thing that stands in the way of people having the rights which they have. Too many hippies believe that the world can exist 'as one' or 'in harmony', but that isn't the world which we live in. There is and always be another government which will attempt to take over and rule. For many people this is a hard fact to face, but it's the real world. Tough luck...

"We sleep peacefully in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

-Winston Churchill

Those who oppose or are against the importance of having a strong military, are severely disconnected with the real world. They are the ones who have never had to truly fight for their freedoms and right to live.

 

[mathwonk]

B.Elliot, it will be interesting to see whether your view that the military is just a harmless and valuable job training corps will survive your service in it. This sounds rather naive to me. The job of a soldier does seem after all primarily to do as he is told, including to kill or help to kill without reservation other human beings, on orders of superiors with the wisdom of a man like george bush. I hope you never find yourself in that situation, but you have signed on to a job that essentially obliges you to do so even if you think it is against your own judgment or even your conscience.I think you also might consider whether having a military that is too strong does not serve primarily as a vehicle for doing foolish things in the world, as we are doing now.

It is a recorded fact that indeed most soldiers actually decline to kill, even in war. At least in the book The Warriors, (Glenn Gray?), I recall that a survey showed only a small percentage of soldiers even fired their weapons, and that was in WW2.

So there seems to be a strong human resistance to do the defining work of a soldier, but one may find oneself in situations where it is hard to resist. The service is not a substitute for chemistry grad school. God keep you.

 

[WarPhalange]

Those who oppose or are against the importance of having a strong military, are severely disconnected with the real world. They are the ones who have never had to truly fight for their freedoms and right to live.

Name one country that would attack us.

We don't need floating cities armed to the teeth with nukes to secure our borders. All we need are highly trained soldiers capable of fast action. Having a huge Army is pointless. Having a huge Navy is pointless.

 

[mheslep]

Name one country that would attack us.

Iceland

 

[russ_watters]

Name one country that would attack us.

We don't need floating cities armed to the teeth with nukes to secure our borders. All we need are highly trained soldiers capable of fast action. Having a huge Army is pointless. Having a huge Navy is pointless.

You have a chicken vs egg problem there: we don't need a powerful army and navy because we have a powerful army and navy. If we didn't have a powerful army and navy...well...we still wouldn't need them because half of us would be speaking German and the other half Japanese.

More to the point: when should we have gotten rid of them? 1990 (right after the Berlin Wall fell and right before the first Gulf War)? Right after WWII? Do you doubt that the face of Europe would be vastly different today if we didn't push back against the USSR during the Cold War? Do you doubt that if we had a military, say, equal to France's, that Saddam Hussein would today (and for the past decade and a half) own the entire Arabian Peninsula (if it didn't cause another world war...)?

Name one country that would attack us.

If we got rid of our military today? No one. But that's because the global landscape has been shaped by the fact that we have a strong military.

If we had gotten rid of our military, say, immediately after the cold war ended, we'd have problems in at least a few of these areas:
-Yugoslavia
-The middle east (several probabilities, but the obvious one is Saddam Hussein would own the Arabian peninsula).
-North Korea.
-Libya
-Terrorism and piracy would be an order of magnitude worse.

If you are worried only about an actual invasion of the lower 48, then you are being incredibly naive. Would you argue that we should have stayed out of WWII? Regardless, global stability depends largely on the US military' existence.

 

[NeoDevin]

Saddam Hussein would own the Arabian peninsula

Would that make things more or less stable than they currently are?

 

[LowlyPion]

John McCain finally broke with the mean spirited strategists today and made it clear in a Town Hall today that Obama was not a dangerous man. That he was a good man and he knew it. McCain said the he happens to think he is better. But it got no applause.

Maybe McCain is grasping to regain his soul?

 

[mheslep]

...Maybe McCain is grasping to regain his soul?

Maybe he sold it to this guy.

 

[Art]

John McCain finally broke with the mean spirited strategists today and made it clear in a Town Hall today that Obama was not a dangerous man. That he was a good man and he knew it. McCain said the he happens to think he is better. But it got no applause.

Maybe McCain is grasping to regain his soul?

'There he goes again' being erratic

 

[LowlyPion]

'There he goes again' being erratic

Well, he's not getting my vote. But he bought back some of the respect I lost for him.

 

[Evo]

Does this mean he's going to pull those "Obama is a terrorist" ads he's been running?

 

[B. Elliott]

B.Elliot, it will be interesting to see whether your view that the military is just a harmless and valuable job training corps will survive your service in it. This sounds rather naive to me. The job of a soldier does seem after all primarily to do as he is told, including to kill or help to kill without reservation other human beings, on orders of superiors with the wisdom of a man like george bush. I hope you never find yourself in that situation, but you have signed on to a job that essentially obliges you to do so even if you think it is against your own judgment or even your conscience.

I have seven family members who have served in the armed forces and none have ever killed a single person. You can pretty much say that I was brought up in a military family, so I'm already in tune with what to expect, even though it will definitely be a paradigm shift.

Too many people view every single person in the military as being brainless killers. That, is naive.

One thing i'd like to note on your comment about 'do as your told', isn't that the same with any common job? Hypothetically, If your boss comes up to you and asks you to review information for some upcoming changes, do you have the option to just say; "Sorry, I don't feel like doing that right now. Maybe some other time." Will they just accept that since it's not the military? No.

You get fired!

With the job that I have, I won't be doing any killing. If I do happen to be put into that position, there's apparently bigger problems to worry about.

 

[LowlyPion]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLlIigHg1v0

 

[B. Elliott]

Name one country that would attack us.

We don't need floating cities armed to the teeth with nukes to secure our borders. All we need are highly trained soldiers capable of fast action. Having a huge Army is pointless. Having a huge Navy is pointless.

As Russ covered eloquently, no one.

You're also making a mountain out of a mole hill with what I said. Where in that post did I ever even imply 'floating cities armed to the teeth with nukes'?

No where.

All i'm saying is that we need a superior military. A superior Army. A superior Navy.

 

[Evo]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLlIigHg1v0

If McCain hadn't recently approved commercials linking Obama to terrorists, it would be sad that he now is faced with having to set his crazy supporters straight.

I think McCain is a decent guy and I really feel that he now regrets having followed some really bad advice. I can sense sincerity in his voice and actions. There is no "he's not a terrorist, wink wink".

Not to mention how bad it would look for him to somehow be the reason behind an attempt on Obama's life. He has to stop the dangerous character assasination. His campaign went beyond the normal accusations of being wishy-washy or flip-flopping on issues. He and Palin crossed the line.

This campaign has sunk to an all time low.

 

[mheslep]

If McCain hadn't recently approved commercials linking Obama to terrorists, it would be sad that he now is faced with having to set his crazy supporters straight.
...
He has to stop the dangerous character assasination. His campaign went beyond the normal accusations of being wishy-washy or flip-flopping on issues. He and Palin crossed the line.

McCain didnt put that lady up to any 'Arab' associations through his ads. The ad-association with Ayers is valid as Obama worked with him for several years of his adult life, though its a distraction from more important issues. Ayers was a Timothy McVey domestic criminal P.O.S., now in college professor clothing.

 

[OrbitalPower]

Ohh Ayers was a nobody Obama barely associated with at all, and how many people did Ayers kill as compared to the Libertarian Timothy McVey?

What I'm more concerned about is McCain's ideology, writing in his book Faith of Our Fathers that he was upset that he had been limited to bombing military installations, roads, and power plants. He said such restrictions were "illogical" and "senseless." McCain has also referred to them as "gooks," a slang term commonly employed in Vietnam against the Vietnamese.

He's also said Obama is wrong to talk about the droping of bombs in Civilians even though during the Clinton years McCain warned about civilian deaths in the exact same manner to which Obama was speaking.

McCain also has a temper, and as far as associations go McCain has associations with right-wing death squads and anti-semetic groups and leaders:

XqDnYrjci-g[/youtube] [url]NuyQn...ain favored as well, whereas Obama would not.

 

[Evo]

McCain didnt put that lady up to any 'Arab' associations through his ads. The ad-association with Ayers is valid as Obama worked with him for several years of his adult life, though its a distraction from more important issues. Ayers was a Timothy McVey domestic terrorist P.O.S., now in college professor clothing, and the Senator.

Why are you picking what one person said? Did you miss the audience reaction throught the entire video?

Excuse me, but Obama worked on a commitee with an upstanding citizen in the community in which he lived. The commercial's allegations are not valid, I'm really disappointed in you.

In "college professor clothing"? Conspiracy theory? You know that is a violation of the guidelines.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

I think the repeated mention of Ayers coupled with "Senator Obama needs to fully disclose his relationship with Ayers! There's something he's not telling us!", but slyly not explaining what exactly the supposed secret might be, is quite obviously a ploy to get people thinking Obama's a terrorist. Just like people emphasizing Obama's middle name, when they probably don't even know McCain's middle name. Or all of the Fox News and conservative commentators who "accidentally" say "Osama" instead of "Obama".

But I think mheslep's "college professor clothing" comment there was simply an allusion to the "wolf in sheep's clothing" parable / fairy-tale-type thing - saying that Ayer's past makes him someone to be more wary of than an ordinary college professor. (If, indeed, college professors are ever ordinary.)

⚛​

 

[LowlyPion]

McCain didnt put that lady up to any 'Arab' associations through his ads. The ad-association with Ayers is valid as Obama worked with him for several years of his adult life, though its a distraction from more important issues. Ayers was a Timothy McVey domestic terrorist P.O.S., now in college professor clothing, and the Senator.

I don't think you have an adequate understanding of what went on in those days after Kent State, where National Guards opened fire on unarmed college students. I don't think you understand the disaffection that that generation had about the scope of Government power and the attempts to quash public protest of the war in Viet Nam. The lines between right and wrong were mighty blurred with the assaults on free expression and dissent.

Comparing Timothy McVey's stupidity with the more palpable conflicts and cross-currents of society that the country was coming to grips with is simply not the same thing. I have no idea of the Bill Ayers from that time in the distant past and whatever his crimes, whatever his lack of repentance may be, but the Bill Ayers of this generation appears to be a man concerned with uplifting those with limited access and opportunity, serving on a board with others - Republican and Democratic - besides Obama - in developing educational opportunities in inner cities.

Why then is there such hatred generated about those trying to help the less advantaged? What high-minded destination can be reached from such terrible misharacterizations and clumsy attempts to defame?

 

[Evo]

But I think mheslep's "college professor clothing" comment there was simply an allusion to the "wolf in sheep's clothing" parable / fairy-tale-type thing - saying that Ayer's past makes him someone to be more wary of than an ordinary college professor. (If, indeed, college professors are ever ordinary.)

⚛​

Yes, and exactly why it's not only misleading but smacks of conspiracy. Suggesting that he's dishonest, that he's an evil person (bad wolf) pretending to be good person. The idea is to make people think that he is currently involved in subversive activites, why else would anyone try to link Obama to what the guy was doing 40 years ago, when Obama was 7 years old.

 

[WarPhalange]

In "college professor clothing"? Conspiracy theory? You know that is a violation of the guidelines.

No, it's true. I wore a tie to school today and they offered me tenure as a physics professor. All you have to do is dress up as a professor and suddenly nobody will care what your accomplishments are. Look at Bush.

I mean, it's not like someone hired Ayers by carefully weighing "bombed public buildings" with all the stuff on his resume that he claims will make him good for the job. Probably just won the job in a raffle or something.

 

[Evo]

No, it's true. I wore a tie to school today and they offered me tenure as a physics professor. All you have to do is dress up as a professor and suddenly nobody will care what your accomplishments are. Look at Bush.

I mean, it's not like someone hired Ayers by carefully weighing "bombed public buildings" with all the stuff on his resume that he claims will make him good for the job. Probably just won the job in a raffle or something.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Yes, and exactly why it's not only misleading but smacks of conspiracy. Suggesting that he's dishonest, that he's an evil person (bad wolf) pretending to be good person. The idea is to make people think that he is currently involved in subversive activites, why else would anyone try to link Obama to what the guy was doing 40 years ago, when Obama was 7 years old.

I do think connecting Obama to Ayers or Ayer's past is totally bogus. But Ayers is, after all, someone who was willing to bomb public places to accomplish political objectives. His girlfriend and a couple of his friends were killed in the course of bomb-making. There might be mitigating circumstances or ends that justify the means but I don't think that stating he's potentially more dangerous than other college professors is misleading.

It's just that it doesn't reflect at all on Obama, so luridly mentioning Ayers and winking and nudging on McCain's part is totally sleazy and by no means Straight Talk.

⚛​

 

[rootX]

I have seven family members who have served in the armed forces and none have ever killed a single person. You can pretty much say that I was brought up in a military family, so I'm already in tune with what to expect, even though it will definitely be a paradigm shift.

...

With the job that I have, I won't be doing any killing. If I do happen to be put into that position, there's apparently bigger problems to worry about.

Military and Technology (which includes Physics) has done more harm to us than any other thing. So, it is lame to say "Physics" is harmful. Russ is also totally right there.

But, I hope we find alternatives better than military for maintaining stability because first current stability is not static and second we are ignoring the costs for maintaining that stability. I don't want any stability which costs more than its value. I also hope that nations don't have level of distrust and hate they had during WWI, WWII, or cold war (like Russ was saying if we hand't stopped our enemies we would have been speaking their language and this is just fear and hate that was shared by both Americans and Japanese ... ).

I am against military because no nation is matured enough to use it wisely. And that's why I personally lose respect for people who serve in military, are patriotic and go for their nations even when their nation is wrong. It is better to get fired than to perform unethical acts.

 

[B. Elliott]

And that's why I personally lose respect for people who serve in military, are patriotic and go for their nations even when their nation is wrong. It is better to get fired than to perform unethical acts.

I'm sad you feel that way. I tend to view things on the positive rather than a pessimistic one, so the way I'm looking at it, I'm putting my life on the line in an attempt preserve others rights to live the way they want to.

I personally loose respect for people who are unappreciative.

*edit*

And just to clarify my position...

It would be very nice to live in a world where liberal views could be reality. No wars, no famine, no suicide bombers, no 9/11. Nothing but common peace love and happiness for all. Trust me, I'm all for it!

But, that isn't the world we live in. This isn't a movie or a book, this is reality. Having a superior military is a real world necessity. As I said before, there will always be another power intent on taking over, if they're able to.

You can also look at it this way; Even if you're strongly anti-military and happen to be a bio/chemical, aeronautical, computer or electrical engineer, you could actually be indirectly contributing (now or later down the road) to a weapon or any other device which could be used to kill people. You could design some kind of memory chip which could later be used in a missile. You could create a fabric which is later used on military tanks. You could invent a new type of network protocol which is then later used to call in a nuclear strike which eventually leads to the destruction of the entire human race.

Point in case, you can see the bad side in anything, if you choose to.

 

[mheslep]

McCain didnt put that lady up to any 'Arab' associations through his ads. The ad-association with Ayers is valid as Obama worked with him for several years of his adult life, though its a distraction from more important issues. Ayers was a Timothy McVey domestic terrorist P.O.S., now in college professor clothing, and the Senator.

This 'and the Senator' part on the end with no verb, going nowhere, was a gaffe/cut n paste/stupidity on my part which I retract. Should have been '...clothing PERIOD'. The rest of the post I stand by as factual.

 

[mheslep]

I don't think you have an adequate understanding of what went on in those days after Kent State, where National Guards opened fire on unarmed college students. I don't think you understand the disaffection that that generation had about the scope of Government power and the attempts to quash public protest of the war in Viet Nam. The lines between right and wrong were mighty blurred with the assaults on free expression and dissent.

Comparing Timothy McVey's stupidity with the more palpable conflicts and cross-currents of society that the country was coming to grips with is simply not the same thing. I have no idea of the Bill Ayers from that time in the distant past and whatever his crimes, whatever his lack of repentance may be, but the Bill Ayers of this generation appears to be a man concerned with uplifting those with limited access and opportunity, serving on a board with others - Republican and Democratic - besides Obama - in developing educational opportunities in inner cities.

Why then is there such hatred generated about those trying to help the less advantaged? What high-minded destination can be reached from such terrible misharacterizations and clumsy attempts to defame?

This is simply a rationalization for a criminal who built and exploded bombs in the US, and who has yet to apologize for it that I've seen. The more significant difference between Ayers and McVey is that Ayers built small bombs and Ayers beat the rap. Chicago prohibition era gangster Al Capone donated large sums to churches and charities; he was none the less a criminal.

I'm informed of the events of the US 1960s and I do not romanticize them as attempted here. Consider this in your study of the 60s, unless you find the author too right wing.
The Summer of Drugs
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010291

 

[LowlyPion]

This is simply a rationalization for a criminal who built and exploded bombs in the US, and who has yet to apologize for it that I've seen. The more significant difference between Ayers and McVey is that Ayers built small bombs and Ayers beat the rap. Chicago prohibition era gangster Al Capone donated large sums to churches and charities; he was none the less a criminal.

You're the one rationalizing his activist dissent against a war policy as being anti-social or anti-American or criminal in any common sense. The truth of the matter was that at that time America was bifurcated along the lines of supporting a war that was feeding American bodies into a hamburger grinder supporting a strategic policy that made no sense. Halting the spread of Communism was a silly goal, but one pursued by the Government until Nixon had to finally withdraw in defeat.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm sad you feel that way. I tend to view things on the positive rather than a pessimistic one, so the way I'm looking at it, I'm putting my life on the line in an attempt preserve others rights to live the way they want to.

I tend to view things on the rational, rather than the emotional side. The way I'm looking at it, your is hardly true anymore.

The current "war on terror", rather than preserve our freedoms is curbing them. We lost the "war" when the Patriot Act was passed. We lost when we condoned torture. We lost the war when we decided it was okay to wiretap American citizens, including those fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We lost when we decided it was good to prop up dictators, so long as they were our pals. We lost when we decided that anyone that disagreed with our global mission was our enemy. We lost when we decided to put blind emotion ahead of reason. We lost when we decided it was okay to sacrifice our liberties to gain a little security.

No, you are not doing what you do to safeguard our liberty; you are doing what you do to try to advance our security (whether or not that is working is a different issue). And unfortunately, today, the latter comes at the cost of the former.

 

[WarPhalange]

This is simply a rationalization for a criminal who built and exploded bombs in the US, and who has yet to apologize for it that I've seen. The more significant difference between Ayers and McVey is that Ayers built small bombs and Ayers beat the rap. Chicago prohibition era gangster Al Capone donated large sums to churches and charities; he was none the less a criminal.

I don't understand your position at all. You're saying that if I went bowling with John Madden for a few years, I'd suddenly be a football fan and commentator, because that's what John Madden is known for?

Obama and Ayers sat on an education board. They didn't discuss bomb making or terrorism.

Maybe I should see if anybody you work with is a convicted criminal? Then I could hang fliers around your neighborhood saying "mheslep pals around with thieves/rapists/pedophiles/carjackers". Would that be in any way fair?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

But, that isn't the world we live in. This isn't a movie or a book, this is reality. Having a superior military is a real world necessity. As I said before, there will always be another power intent on taking over, if they're able to.

Dude - I'm not totally anti-military like some of these other guys, but seriously, you talk about paying attention to reality - we are the power intent on taking over! Don't you see any of the blowback that has come from arrogantly and unilaterally throwing our military weight around?

Like Iraq having been turned into an enormous haven for terrorists where more Americans have been killed than during 9/11. Like having sold arms to both Iran and Iraq before that to promote regional conflict for our own interests. Using Afghanistan for a proxy war with the Soviets and then leaving them for dead with bombed-out cities and a ruined infrastructure and countryside, and surprise surprise, the Taliban state emerges from that.

Another one I love is the conquest of the Philippines a century ago, which pretty obviously engendered Abu Sayyaf and the other Filipino Muslim groups that are strong members of Al Quaeda now. (That war prefigured Iraq quite accurately - we were stuck in the Philippines for more than a decade, for most of that time fighting Muslim insurgent groups and terrorists.)

That's what reality is. Our selfish and overly militaristic handling of world affairs during the last hundred years - during which we've been on top, been the authority in the world and should have been the responsible ones - is probably going to be costing American lives, screwing up American interests, and causing further misery all over the place for decades if not centuries, long after we've lost the ability to push around whoever we want to.

―​

On another note, did anyone see McCain laying the smack down at a rally? A woman came up to the microphone and said, "You've got to stop Barack Obama, I've read about him and I know he's an Arab!" And McCain simply said, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YIq5Q15L1o" Not completely redeeming but good for him.

[EDIT] Oops, I see that's been already discussed long since. Silly me.

⚛​

 

[B. Elliott]

I tend to view things on the rational, rather than the emotional side. The way I'm looking at it, your is hardly true anymore.

The current "war on terror", rather than preserve our freedoms is curbing them. We lost the "war" when the Patriot Act was passed. We lost when we condoned torture. We lost the war when we decided it was okay to wiretap American citizens, including those fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We lost when we decided it was good to prop up dictators, so long as they were our pals. We lost when we decided that anyone that disagreed with our global mission was our enemy. We lost when we decided to put blind emotion ahead of reason.

No, you are not doing what you do to safeguard our liberty; you are doing what you do to try to advance our security (whether or not that is working is a different issue). And unfortunately, today, the latter comes at the cost of the former.

What's emotional about what I said? When did I mention that I'm joining solely to help the 'war on terror'?

Your opinion is very shortsighted.

We lost when we decided it was okay to sacrifice our liberties to gain a little security.

We've never lost since we're still able to live our lives as normal. Since you've never served, you can hardly have an opinion that has any meaning. It's easy to sit back and point fingers when there's others out there making sure that finger doesn't get chopped off.

 

[B. Elliott]

Dude - I'm not totally anti-military like some of these other guys, but seriously, you talk about paying attention to reality - we are the power intent on taking over! Don't you see any of the blowback that has come from arrogantly and unilaterally throwing our military weight around?

Like Iraq having been turned into an enormous haven for terrorists where more Americans have been killed than during 9/11. Like having sold arms to both Iran and Iraq before that to promote regional conflict for our own interests. Using Afghanistan for a proxy war with the Soviets and then leaving them for dead with bombed-out cities and a ruined infrastructure and countryside, and surprise surprise, the Taliban state emerges from that.

Another one I love is the conquest of the Philippines a century ago, which pretty obviously engendered Abu Sayyaf and the other Filipino Muslim groups that are strong members of Al Quaeda now. (That war prefigured Iraq quite accurately - we were stuck in the Philippines for more than a decade, for most of that time fighting Muslim insurgent groups and terrorists.)

That's what reality is. Our selfish and overly militaristic handling of world affairs during the last hundred years - during which we've been on top, been the authority in the world and should have been the responsible ones - is probably going to be costing American lives, screwing up American interests, and causing further misery all over the place for decades if not centuries, long after we've lost the ability to push around whoever we want to.

New World Order conspiracy BS.