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

[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.

⚛​