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

[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.

 

[WarPhalange]

New World Order conspiracy BS.

Err... what? He's saying the US messed with other countries for the past century and it's coming back to bite us in the ***.

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

No NWO conspiracy necessary. Simply "I WANT NOW AND I SMASH IF I DON'T GET"

Same thing with Bin Laden and the Soviets. We gave him weapons and now he turned on us.

He's saying that us throwing around military might is what is causing so many blows back on us years later. If we didn't immediately shoot people who don't agree with us, we might have more friends these days.

 

[NeoDevin]

Since you've never served, you can hardly have an opinion that has any meaning.

Most ignorant point raised so far.

 

[B. Elliott]

If we didn't immediately shoot people who don't agree with us, we might have more friends these days.

It would more correct to say, "If we didn't help out allied countries as much as we have, we wouldn't continue to have the friends (allies) we do."

Imagine no US involvement with WW2. I wonder how well that would have turned out.

 

[B. Elliott]

Most ignorant point raised so far.

How so? Since he's never served, he can hardly be aware of the advantages that come along with serving. Especially if there's a preconceived opinion that 'all military is bad'.

It's also hardly ignorant considering he's completely ignorant of my reasons for serving and exactly what duties I will have, what I will learn, and the overall advantages that I will gain.

The media has done more to hurt the military's image than anything else.

 

[Gokul43201]

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

I didn't say you were but it doesn't change the relevance of my post. If you sign up, you have no control over what missions to choose and what to drop.

Your opinion is very shortsighted.

Care to explain how? Or should our arguments degenerate into "your momma's fat"?

We've never lost since we're still able to live our lives as normal.

Speak for yourself.

Since you've never served, you can hardly have an opinion that has any meaning.

I hope you've got no opinions on rape and murder.

It's easy to sit back and point fingers when there's others out there making sure that finger doesn't get chopped off.

I'd rather lose my finger than my freedoms, thank you.

But in any case, I wasn't pointing any fingers at anyone. I was merely explaining that you are not protecting the things you believe you are. You may be protecting my finger, but you are not protecting my right to point it at you.

 

[Count Iblis]

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.

Yes, a superior military to prevent war is ok. But not if you want to use it to coerce other nation to do exactly what you want. Most people will not die from terror attacks, even if you gave Bin Laden 100 planes that he could fly into buildings. Most people are at threat from cancer, heart attacks or other diseases. So, heath care is more important than fighting the war on terror.

So, however you look at it, the liberal world view is more accurate than the Neo-Con world view.

 

[B. Elliott]

I didn't say you were but it doesn't change the relevance of my post. If you sign up, you have no control over what missions to choose and what to drop.

Negative. The specific job duty that I choose will determine what type of missions I will have.

Care to explain how? Or should our arguments degenerate into "your momma's fat"?

How is saying that that opinion is very short sighted, degrading to 'fat momma jokes'? I explained how it is short sighted in the previous post.

I hope you've got no opinions on rape and murder.

Rape and murder. I'll definitely be seeing a lot of that as an electrical/computer technician.

I'd rather lose my finger than my freedoms, thank you.

I hope your never put into the position to potentially loose your finger. If you are, chances are both are on the line, and about to be lost.

 

[rootX]

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.

I think I am being optimistic here. First, we need to eradicate ignorance among people like that lady who was saying "He is .. ARAB" (Clearly, there is hate and fear among those minds). These are the people who facilitate the abuse of the military power. Second, nations need to think about global welfare not their personal interests (and this can be made possible only if its people are rational)- US is not doing its job right because it seems like US is just trying to make sure that it stays ahead of China and Russia etc.

We are much better now, thanks to all people who promoted the use of non-violence methods for solving problems and who brought awareness among the ignorants and who helped decrease the racial hate. Military solves the problems but only for short span of time but it cultivates hate that brings more problems. It is the co-operation and dependency among different nations that bring long term peace and prosperity.

 

[Gokul43201]

Negative. The specific job duty that I choose will determine what type of missions I will have.

Only the type of mission, not the deployment.

How is saying that that opinion is very short sighted, degrading to 'fat momma jokes'? I explained how it is short sighted in the previous post.

I'm sorry I don't read all the posts in the thread, but I do read those that are directed to me. Since you dedicated an entire separate paragraph to telling me that that my opinion was short-sighted with no additional justification, I took it that was all you had to say about that.

Rape and murder. I'll definitely be seeing a lot of that as an electrical/computer technician.

It appears you missed the point I was making. By your logic, a person can not have opinions on rape or murder without actually participating in rape or murder. This may be the reason that Neodevin reacted to that statement as well.

I hope your never put into the position to potentially loose your finger. If you are, chances are both are on the line, and about to be lost.

I do not understand what you are saying here.

 

[WarPhalange]

It would more correct to say, "If we didn't help out allied countries as much as we have, we wouldn't continue to have the friends (allies) we do."

Imagine no US involvement with WW2. I wonder how well that would have turned out.

Which allies were we helping in Vietnam?

Which allies were we helping when we overthrew Iran's government?

Which allies were we helping when we told Spain to F--- Off from the Philippines because we were taking over?

Which allies were we helping when we helped Iraq with its war with Iran, which Iraq started?

 

[WarPhalange]

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.

Who would invade the US? We have Nukes. Not to mention, any country powerful enough to try and invade us (even in a very weakened state) already owns a good portion of us. They'd be attacking and destroying their own assets. Not to mention, other country have a fair share of investments in us. They wouldn't be too happy with us getting attacked.

 

[B. Elliott]

Only the type of mission, not the deployment.

The job dictates exactly what you will be doing. If I sign up as a Navy dentist, chances are I will never ever kill anyone. If I sign up as a nuclear technician, chances are I will never kill anyone. The goes for, civil engineers, aerographers, physicians, optometry, financing/accounting, information systems techs, cryptologic techs, information systems tech, ect, ect, ect.

Each job finely narrows the deployment. Compare a Navy Seal to a dentist, and you'll get my point.

I'm sorry I don't read all the posts in the thread, but I do read those that are directed to me. Since you dedicated an entire separate paragraph to telling me that that my opinion was short-sighted with no additional justification, I took it that was all you had to say about that.

You were apparently typing up your post when I responded. I just didn't fell like going back and copying and pasting since I already said it once.

It appears you missed the point I was making. By your logic, a person can not have opinions on rape or murder without actually participating in rape or murder. This may be the reason that Neodevin reacted to that statement as well.

Understanding the physical acts of rape and murder are completely different from having experienced knowledge of the was a complex dynamic system works. Namely, inner military routines and specifics.

I do not understand what you are saying here.

Your finger being cut off representing physical harm coming to you from direct contact with an enemy... who's intent could be to kill you.

You saying that you would 'rather lose my finger than my freedoms', is suggesting that you would rather put yourself in harms way (confront the enemy directly) than loose your freedom.

If you're being forced to confront the enemy yourself, on your home turf, chances are any freedoms you currently have are will on their way out the window.

 

[NeoDevin]

This may be the reason that Neodevin reacted to that statement as well.

I reacted because it seems incredibly ignorant (to me at least), to suggest that one cannot have a meaningful opinion about an activity/organization to which one does not, and has never belonged.

 

[B. Elliott]

Which allies were we helping in Vietnam?

We were helping to stop the spread of communism. We were helping everyone who believes in freedom.

Do you believe we should have just let the communist North invade a conquer the South?

Which allies were we helping when we overthrew Iran's government?

The US military was involved with that?

Which allies were we helping when we told Spain to F--- Off from the Philippines because we were taking over?

To be honest my history with that part of the Spanish-American war isn't that good.

Which allies were we helping when we helped Iraq with its war with Iran, which Iraq started?

Well the Iran hostage crisis definitely didn't help the issue, but Britain, France, the Soviet Union, and West Germany also felt the need to jump in and help. A lot of it was due to help keep any problems with oil flow from happening... potentially causing problems here at home. That, and we had a pact with Saudi Arabia, who were allies.

 

[B. Elliott]

I reacted because it seems incredibly ignorant (to me at least), to suggest that one cannot have a meaningful opinion about an activity/organization to which one does not, and has never belonged.

Well, i'll take back the wording since I apparently used the wrong word.

You can definitely have an opinion on anything you hear about, but do you have complete knowledge of the activity/organization?

Exactly like the woman who was calling Obama a 'muslim' or whatever. She heard just enough to form an opinion. Is that opinion truly knowledgeable? No, because she doesn't have a complete true understanding.

She knows just enough to make herself look foolish.

 

[WarPhalange]

So she would have to be Obama in order to have a good opinion of him?

 

[B. Elliott]

So she would have to be Obama in order to have a good opinion of him?

She would have to do more than just read information that is thrown at her.

If she did any studying, she would learn.

 

[LowlyPion]

Do you believe we should have just let the communist North invade a conquer the South?

As it turns out - yes.

The Domino Theory was born out of a failed understanding of world order and the limits of power.

It was born out of failed tactical understanding for the guerrilla warfare that had driven out the French.

Aside from the deaths of so many Americans what was actually accomplished there?

It certainly has had little to do with stopping Communism. The US has in fact abandoned all thought of stopping Communism, as the Bush planners have decided there are now other "-isms" that need to be stopped.

And in the broad sweep of history will our efforts now be seen as having accomplished any more than our failed attempts in Indo-China?

 

[B. Elliott]

As it turns out - yes.

The Domino Theory was born out of a failed understanding of world order and the limits of power.

It was born out of failed tactical understanding for the guerrilla warfare that had driven out the French.

I guess so. Sure.

Aside from the deaths of so many Americans what was actually accomplished there?

Pretty much nothing. We were fighting on their turf which present a major problem. It would have very nice if we weren't at such a disadvantage.

It certainly has had little to do with stopping Communism. The US has in fact abandoned all thought of stopping Communism, as the Bush planners have decided there are now other "-isms" that need to be stopped.

It was all about Communism. Simply because Bush (who is also at the mercy of congresses final decision) currently considers there to be greater problems, has no bearing on the potential problems of 35 years ago.

And in the broad sweep of history will our efforts now be seen as having accomplished any more than our failed attempts in Indo-China?

I haven't been keeping up with that. Type me up a history lesson.

 

[Evo]

New World Order conspiracy BS.

B. Elliot, those events are all true.