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

[B. Elliott]

I believe that to be allowed to run for president, one must have served a period of time as a scientist. It would help avoid a lot of illogical and stupid decisions.

That does sound like a good requirement. I'm for it! But also consider that the military provides avenues for becoming a scientist.

Two birds with one stone!

 

[vanesch]

That does sound like a good requirement. I'm for it! But also consider that the military provides avenues for becoming a scientist.

Two birds with one stone!

Point is that if you have to have been a soldier, a scientist, a business man, a CEO, a sportsman and a movie actor, chances are you're a job hopper

 

[B. Elliott]

Point is that if you have to have been a soldier, a scientist, a business man, a CEO, a sportsman and a movie actor, chances are you're a job hopper

Eh, anything that deals with entertainment definitely shouldn't be a requirement, though the position shouldn't be held against one who has been an entertainer or a sportsman.

Overall the military teaches objective reasoning skills along with a plethora of other critical thinking skills... as I mentioned earlier in the thread. Those same skills are also applied in many, many other job areas.

 

[russ_watters]

Overall the military teaches objective reasoning skills along with a plethora of other critical thinking skills... as I mentioned earlier in the thread. Those same skills are also applied in many, many other job areas.

As displayed in this thread, most people who haven't been in the military have this image of mindless killing machines, but you're right that servicemen, officers in particular, are taught critical thinking skills, ethics, and morality*+, which are essential for the ability to make good decisions and be good leaders and are not taught anywhere else. The first half of my undergrad education, at the Naval academy, included weekly leadership/ethics seminars, leadership and ethics classes, weekly speeches by prominent leaders (Colin Powell, Janet Reno, Jim Lovell, etc.), and upperclassman-based instruction (that one's hard to describe). The second half of my undergrad education at Drexel University included one engineering ethics class (which is a relatively new thing) . There is no other place to learn good leadership skills than in the military. That's why, to me, military service is the single biggest qualification I look for in leaders. There are very few people who haven't been in the miltiary who are capable of being real leaders.

*Liberals and young people tend to be moral relativists, as a default belief (along with the 'anything is possible' belief is the 'right and wrong depends on the individual'). One amazing experience I had at the Naval Academy was actual discussions about morality. Most people have these ideas in their heads about morality that they never actually explore - they think something, it sounds good, so they believe it. But when you start to actually discuss it, argue it, and think it through, people realize that the standard assumption of moral relativism is actually defunct. It is wrong, obsolete, and it doesn't work in practice. I'd guess that when we started these seminars, more than 75?% of midshipmen were relativists. By the end, after being forced to think about it, more than 75% were moral absolutists/realists. This is the kind of thinking I want from my leaders. The charismatic, but empty leadership displayed by Obama will be a big problem if the country ever needs real leadership@.

+Caveat: the type and level of this training is not consistent, even in the military. In particular, a re-emphasizing of the need for officers to be moral free-thinkers occurred after the My Lai incident, which happened after McCain was captured. So it is possible that midshipmen today receive more leadership training than McCain did when he was at the Academy.

@Clinton will likely go down in history as an above average President. What will prevent him from being considered a great or even exceptional President is his utter lack of real leadership skills. Clinton relied heavily on public opinion polls to make his decisions and surrounded himself with mindless sycophants who couldn't actually help him make decisions. He lacked morality/ethics and didn't think/lead for himself. He was lucky enough to be President during a time where the US needed perhaps the least leadership in its history (with the exception of doing nothing about the rising terrorism problem). Bush, on the other hand, will go down in history as a bad President who nevertheless had good leadership skills, which enabled him to start an unnecessary war and get re-elected. He got people to line up behind what was otherwise an unpopular vision.

 

[Gokul43201]

And what happens when your critical thinking leads you to the conclusion that you are a participant in an unjust cause?

PS:

He got people to line up behind what was otherwise an unpopular vision.

That's not hard to do when you don't have a problem spinning yarns. It also helps when people are dumb as nails. But most importantly, kicking the bad guy's ass has never been an unpopular thing in this country.

 

[B. Elliott]

As displayed in this thread, most people who haven't been in the military have this image of mindless killing machines, but you're right that servicemen, officers in particular, are taught critical thinking skills, ethics, and morality*+, which are essential for the ability to make good decisions and be good leaders and are not taught anywhere else. The first half of my undergrad education, at the Naval academy, included weekly leadership/ethics seminars, leadership and ethics classes, weekly speeches by prominent leaders (Colin Powell, Janet Reno, Jim Lovell, etc.), and upperclassman-based instruction (that one's hard to describe). The second half of my undergrad education at Drexel University included one engineering ethics class (which is a relatively new thing) . There is no other place to learn good leadership skills than in the military. That's why, to me, military service is the single biggest qualification I look for in leaders. There are very few people who haven't been in the miltiary who are capable of being real leaders.

*Liberals and young people tend to be moral relativists, as a default belief (along with the 'anything is possible' belief is the 'right and wrong depends on the individual'). One amazing experience I had at the Naval Academy was actual discussions about morality. Most people have these ideas in their heads about morality that they never actually explore - they think something, it sounds good, so they believe it. But when you start to actually discuss it, argue it, and think it through, people realize that the standard assumption of moral relativism is actually defunct. It is wrong, obsolete, and it doesn't work in practice. I'd guess that when we started these seminars, more than 75?% of midshipmen were relativists. By the end, after being forced to think about it, more than 75% were moral absolutists/realists. This is the kind of thinking I want from my leaders. The charismatic, but empty leadership displayed by Obama will be a big problem if the country ever needs real leadership@.

+Caveat: the type and level of this training is not consistent, even in the military. In particular, a re-emphasizing of the need for officers to be moral free-thinkers occurred after the My Lai incident, which happened after McCain was captured. So it is possible that midshipmen today receive more leadership training than McCain did when he was at the Academy.

@Clinton will likely go down in history as an above average President. What will prevent him from being considered a great or even exceptional President is his utter lack of real leadership skills. Clinton relied heavily on public opinion polls to make his decisions and surrounded himself with mindless sycophants who couldn't actually help him make decisions. He lacked morality/ethics and didn't think/lead for himself. He was lucky enough to be President during a time where the US needed perhaps the least leadership in its history (with the exception of doing nothing about the rising terrorism problem). Bush, on the other hand, will go down in history as a bad President who nevertheless had good leadership skills, which enabled him to start an unnecessary war and get re-elected. He got people to line up behind what was otherwise an unpopular vision.

Very well said Russ. Very well. It's funny, but I've noticed that easily 99% of the people I know that have been in the military, advise others to join to at least gain the experience. It's seems as though it's always those with non-military experience who have something against it... who knock it. Those who were in the service always had a bad opinion on something, but overall, they advocate it.

As you said, most people also have the preconceived image in their head of a military personnel; They have an assault rifle, they're all thick-skulled brainless grunts, they have a shoot first ask questions later mentality, they're mindless killers, ect, ect.

This is the 21st century.

 

[grant9076]

It is clear that there are many misconceptions about the military being displayed here. I do not have time to quote each one individually so here are just a few of the blatant ones that I see.

Myth 1: Soldiers are brainwashed to be a bunch of killers.
Law enforcement (such as FBI etc.) are also trained to use deadly force when needed. Do you think that they are a bunch of killers too? Military personell generally do not like going to war. If they have to, then they try very hard to minimize collateral damage.

Myth 2: No aiming is required when dropping bombs.
This is completely false. Whether the pilot/WSO is dropping a GBU-24, an AGM-130, or just a regular "dumb bomb", if he/she wants to get it close to the target then it has to be carefully aimed and released while in the proper weapons launch parameters. Also, re-read the answer to the previous myth.

Myth 3: There is not much emotional stress involved in aerial combat missions.
All combat missions are stressful, especially when it takes you through multiple threat rings (effective radii of surface to air weaponry). The person who believes this has obviously never been in combat.

Myth 4: The National Guard is made up of a bunch of draft dodgers.
In Desert Storm and in Operation Allied Force (Kosovo), members of the Air National Guard served very well alongside the Air Force. Oh, by the way, they are very skillful pilots too.

Also, I get the impression that many here grossly underestimate the academic programs at the service academies. Having graduated from the Air Force Academy, I can say that getting accepted into the Academy was much harder for me than getting accepted into MIT. In fact, my room mate (1st year) also easily got accepted into MIT. However, he flunked out of the Air Force Academy.

Just to give an idea, here is a sample (not all inclusive) of the core curriculum (minimum requirements regardless of major): 4 semesters of Math, 2 semesters of aeronautical engineering, 2 semesters of astronautical engineering, 2 semesters of electrical engineering, 4 semesters of physics, 2 semesters of chemistry, 4 semesters of history, 4 semesters of behavioral science, 2 semesters of general engineering, 2 semesters of engineering mechanics, 2 semesters of philosophy, 2 semesters of biology, 2 semesters of a foreign language, 1 semester of aerospace physiology, 3 semesters of political science, 2 semesters of economics, 1 semester of English Literature, 1 semester of technical writing, 4 semesters of professional military studies (officership and warfighting).

We should remember that this list is not all inclusive, the full list is the absolute minimum (even if you are a history or a humanities major), and that you will have to add the courses for your academic major.

On another note, I have a feeling that many here do not realize that an officer will need to have a Master's degree if he/she intends to make it past the rank of Major (not to mention getting into Air War College). The point that I am getting at here is that I do not see how someone who is unable to think clearly could make it in the military.

 

[vanesch]

Eh, anything that deals with entertainment definitely shouldn't be a requirement, though the position shouldn't be held against one who has been an entertainer or a sportsman.

Overall the military teaches objective reasoning skills along with a plethora of other critical thinking skills... as I mentioned earlier in the thread. Those same skills are also applied in many, many other job areas.

My point was that giving special favor for a candidate which has this or that job experience is IMO not a good idea, because in every job you find qualities (and disadvantages too). So the perfect candidate should have had all those good experiences. If one requires him/her to have had a military experience, because of certain positive aspects related to have been in the military, then you can hold a very similar discourse for about every job category.

Entertainment is funny: you've had Reagan, and then we have Schwarzie of course (not as president, but almost so), etc... Being in the entertainment industry gives you perfect qualities for being a president: perfect communication skills, "an ear to the public", you know how to bring happiness, you've taken the skin of many different personalities (good knowledge of human psychology etc...), extremely good liar (eh?) ...

Sport is fun: self discipline, achievement, endurance, performance, a drive for results, good knowledge of the pharmaceutical sector (eh ?), ...

Being a gang leader is fun: can make others respect you, can take hard decisions, can be creative with the law, capable to manage difficult people, sense of risk, has no enemies (alive) ...

 

[B. Elliott]

My point was that giving special favor for a candidate which has this or that job experience is IMO not a good idea, because in every job you find qualities (and disadvantages too). So the perfect candidate should have had all those good experiences. If one requires him/her to have had a military experience, because of certain positive aspects related to have been in the military, then you can hold a very similar discourse for about every job category.

Entertainment is funny: you've had Reagan, and then we have Schwarzie of course (not as president, but almost so), etc... Being in the entertainment industry gives you perfect qualities for being a president: perfect communication skills, "an ear to the public", you know how to bring happiness, you've taken the skin of many different personalities (good knowledge of human psychology etc...), extremely good liar (eh?) ...

Sport is fun: self discipline, achievement, endurance, performance, a drive for results, good knowledge of the pharmaceutical sector (eh ?), ...

Being a gang leader is fun: can make others respect you, can take hard decisions, can be creative with the law, capable to manage difficult people, sense of risk, has no enemies (alive) ...

But being an entertainer or player of sports did not involve serving the US government its self.

That's my point.

 

[LowlyPion]

Bush, on the other hand, will go down in history as a bad President who nevertheless had good leadership skills, which enabled him to start an unnecessary war and get re-elected. He got people to line up behind what was otherwise an unpopular vision.

Sorry, but I don't see bald deceitfulness employed to forward a small minded agenda as a particularly useful or desirable leadership skill. Bush Jr. will surely only be seen as a weak imitation of his father, who himself was a less than memorable president.

 

[B. Elliott]

I'm still 120% positive that everyone should have to serve in one branch of the service or another. That's where my requirement for having service background comes from. If everyone had spent time in the Air Force, Navy, Marines, Army, Coast Guard, ect. everyone will be eligible to run for president.

 

[russ_watters]

And what happens when your critical thinking leads you to the conclusion that you are a participant in an unjust cause?

That's one of the primary reasons why critical thinking skills and ethics are so important. For one thing, officers are duty-bound to refuse orders that are illegal.

Now perhaps you are referring specifically to the Vietnam or Iraq wars. You need to remember that one junior officer can't change an entire war. The breadth of the effect that you can have is dependent on your paygrade. But that's why those qualities are good to have in a President: at that level, you want someone with the critical thinking skills and ethics required to make good decisions about war. I trust a person like McCain with such decisions much more than I trust a person like Obama.

 

[russ_watters]

Very well said Russ. Very well. It's funny, but I've noticed that easily 99% of the people I know that have been in the military, advise others to join to at least gain the experience. It's seems as though it's always those with non-military experience who have something against it... who knock it. Those who were in the service always had a bad opinion on something, but overall, they advocate it.

Since things didn't as planned for me in the military, I didn't have a very good experience, but I would still recommend it to anyone. It is a character builder like no other experience you can have.

Regarding the brainwashing thing, that just makes me laugh. Kids go to a school like Berkeley and become conformist noncomformists and think that they are free thinkers, when in reality they are just carbon copies of every other mindless sign-carrying hippie wannabee out there. They follow those causes because it is fun and it is cool, not because they have thought the issues through and see them clearly.

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry, but I don't see bald deceitfulness employed to forward a small minded agenda as a particularly useful or desirable leadership skill. Bush Jr. will surely only be seen as a weak imitation of his father, who himself was a less than memorable president.

You didn't read that correctly. Every leader has a vision. Some visions are good, some visions are bad, and some visions are good even though no one likes them. Regardless of the specifics of the vision, good leadership is what gets people behind a leader's vision.

 

[LowlyPion]

I'm still 120% positive that everyone should have to serve in one branch of the service or another.

I would have to disagree with that. A more massive service would take on a life of its own. I think it would become a concentration of power that would offer temptations too great for even the best of men. Look at how these men in power today have justified their actions and would likely cling to power still if they could only figure a bigger lie or had any hopes of subverting the checks that will apparently drive them from office in 6 months.

Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate the personal discipline and accountability and opportunity to succeed in life through the exercise of ones skills that service provides. But I can't lose sight of the perils of societal regimentation. If everyone marches to the beat of a single drum then who can be trusted to beat the drum?

History records as exceptions such men as Cincinnatus or George Washington eschewing unchecked power to return to their lives.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I disagree somewhat with that. You can learn a lot by yourself or outside of the academia.

But on a related note, what do you think about computer literacy? Do you think that a pre-requisite in this day and age should be that a President know how to operate a computer and be somewhat conversant with the use of modern technology?

I'm sure a person can learn a lot outside of academia. I've personally never been to college.
But we're talking about an important job that is very demanding. When I see presidents and presidential candidates who can't seem to keep straight the basics of who's who and what their relationships are to one another in the war that they are advocating that any high school student with a newspaper should be able tell you it really bothers me. And bothers me more so when I think just how complex are the policies, legislation, and economic issues they deal with. Sure they will always have their advisors but it doesn't matter much if they can't tell whether their advisors are at all qualified or just full of bologna.

 

[LowlyPion]

Regardless of the specifics of the vision, good leadership is what gets people behind a leader's vision.

You can't seriously suggest that the US is in Iraq because the American public was anything but manipulated to it by the fabrication and misrepresentation of unreal threats. I'd say Bush-Cheney-Rove have not exercised leadership by whatever scalar you want to apply to it so much as they have exercised their ability to manipulate and trick through deceit. Manipulation is not leadership any more than a coyote causing a stampede would be considered a leader.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Too many people today can't grasp what it was was like to live 500, 600, 800 or 1,000 years ago. They've become too accustomed to everything always being there. Everything always being available whenever, wherever they want... Their freedom being simply handed to them. Well, that hasn't always been the case. At one time people had to put their lives on the line to for their freedom. The had to put their lives on the line to search for food for their families. The had to put their lives on the line to keep invaders out and their territory... otherwise they would loose their freedoms.

IMO, not understanding or fully comprehending the above, now that's true desensitization.

That's all true except who's fighting for what freedom nowadays? When politicians say that the soldiers are in Iraq to protect our freedom, I know it's pure propaganda. Just remember that they're fighting for oil, and not your freedom.

 

[B. Elliott]

I would have to disagree with that. A more massive service would take on a life of its own. I think it would become a concentration of power that would offer temptations too great for even the best of men. Look at how these men in power today have justified their actions and would likely cling to power still if they could only figure a bigger lie or had any hopes of subverting the checks that will apparently drive them from office in 6 months.

Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate the personal discipline and accountability and opportunity to succeed in life through the exercise of ones skills that service provides. But I can't lose sight of the perils of societal regimentation. If everyone marches to the beat of a single drum then who can be trusted to beat the drum?

History records as exceptions such men as Cincinnatus or George Washington eschewing unchecked power to return to their lives.

But not every single person will be in the military at the same time. I'm suggesting that everyone should be required to serve time in the military. Whether it be four years, or 30 is up to the individual. After your four years is up, you are now qualified to run for presidential office since you now have first hand knowledge of how the military which you are in command of operates.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You can't seriously suggest that the US is in Iraq because the American public was anything but manipulated to it by the fabrication and misrepresentation of unreal threats. I'd say Bush-Cheney-Rove have not exercised leadership by whatever scalar you want to apply to it so much as they have exercised their ability to manipulate and trick through deceit. Manipulation is not leadership any more than a coyote causing a stampede would be considered a leader.

I have to agree with the Pion. Its not just a matter of making decisions and getting people behind them but making good decisions and getting the people to support you. After the Iraq invasion Bush quickly lost most of his followers. Definitely not a sign of a good leader.

 

[LowlyPion]

My point about military service is based more on the fact that it would become a much bigger entity.

Currently - if I may quote Wikipedia at least insofar as to talk orders of magnitude:

"As of May 2007, about 1,426,705 people are on active duty in the military with an additional 1,458,400 people in the seven reserve components."

Now if the US currently has in excess of 300M people and you would talk about 4 year terms then you may be talking about a service - assuming 80 year life expectancy and even population distribution by age to be 4/80 or 1/20 that if you apply to the 300M population suggests a military establishment of some 15M individuals. That would be about 5 times larger than now. That much power and influence would take on a life of its own. Just think of all the projects military planners would have the manpower to consider and possibly attempt. That thought should be enough to tighten most any sphincter.

 

[LightbulbSun]

As you said, most people also have the preconceived image in their head of a military personnel; They have an assault rifle, they're all thick-skulled brainless grunts, they have a shoot first ask questions later mentality, they're mindless killers, ect, ect.

This is the 21st century.

And most people have the preconceived image of an anti-war person as a bleeding heart liberal. You know, if you seek alternative options to solving problems other than bomb the **** out of someone, that makes you spineless.

I'm sorry if you hear frustration behind my posts, but I can't stand the distorted stance of military people being the only true leaders and all of that other nonsense. Maybe the Iraq War is agitating me. Maybe there will be a future war that makes a little more sense than this one where I won't be so agitated. But I'm sick of regular citizens being treated like turds all because we weren't quick enough to jump the gun, and be inclined to bloodshed.

 

[B. Elliott]

My point about military service is based more on the fact that it would become a much bigger entity.

Currently - if I may quote Wikipedia at least insofar as to talk orders of magnitude:

"As of May 2007, about 1,426,705 people are on active duty in the military with an additional 1,458,400 people in the seven reserve components."

Now if the US currently has in excess of 300M people and you would talk about 4 year terms then you may be talking about a service - assuming 80 year life expectancy and even population distribution by age to be 4/80 or 1/20 that if you apply to the 300M population suggests a military establishment of some 15M individuals. That would be about 5 times larger than now. That much power and influence would take on a life of its own. Just think of all the projects military planners would have the manpower to consider and possibly attempt. That thought should be enough to tighten most any sphincter.

Sure, you could do a lot of wrong with it, just as any president can now... or has, whichever way you want to look at it. The key is, The President isn't as powerful as people believe. Yes he is a position of power, but he isn't end-all powerful. His power has limitations. Any act which he intends to follow through with, has to go through congress first.

On the other side of the coin, look at how much good can come from it; Everyone will be provided an avenue for education, everyone will learn basic leadership skills, everyone will learn the basics behind our government and the way it operates, everyone will have a job.

Sure, there's a bad side. There's also a bad side to offering free health care to everyone.

 

[B. Elliott]

And most people have the preconceived image of an anti-war person as a bleeding heart liberal. You know, if you seek alternative options to solving problems other than bomb the **** out of someone, that makes you spineless.

That's an extreme interpretation of the a typical military personnel. You obviously have no grasp whatsoever of the military, so I guess it's easy to call it whatever you like. Until you experience it, you do not know.

If you believe that every aspect of the military involves dropping bombs, that in it's self is proof of the ignorance.

I'm sorry if you hear frustration behind my posts, but I can't stand the distorted stance of military people being the only true leaders and all of that other nonsense. Maybe the Iraq War is agitating me. Maybe there will be a future war that makes a little more sense than this one where I won't be so agitated. But I'm sick of regular citizens being treated like turds all because we weren't quick enough to jump the gun, and be inclined to bloodshed.

Regular people (you) aren't being treated like turds! How are you being treated so badly? Explain. Remember that EVERY single military personnel was a civillian at one time and VERY many are now. I'm not getting upset, I seriously want to understand what the military has personally done to you to make you feel so bad. I'm all ears.

 

[LowlyPion]

His power has limitations. Any act which he intends to follow through with, has to go through congress first.

Sadly that particular check falls prey to the very deceit that Bush/Cheney/Rove employed in using Colin Powell to front their lies.

Not to pick on just the Republicans let's not forget the Gulf of Tonkin resolution either that kicked off another ill advised episode of adventurism.

I realize less war would mean fewer War Heroes. But maybe that would be a good thing?

 

[Gokul43201]

That's one of the primary reasons why critical thinking skills and ethics are so important. For one thing, officers are duty-bound to refuse orders that are illegal.

And what happens when they don't? And secondly, what happens if an order is "lawful", but immoral?

Now perhaps you are referring specifically to the Vietnam or Iraq wars. You need to remember that one junior officer can't change an entire war.

I wasn't thinking about changing the war. I was thinking simply about personally refusing participate in it due to one's conclusions drawn from critical thinking. If I'm not mistaken, that leads directly to a court martial.

But that's why those qualities are good to have in a President: at that level, you want someone with the critical thinking skills and ethics required to make good decisions about war. I trust a person like McCain with such decisions much more than I trust a person like Obama.

Do you honestly believe McCain has strong critical thinking skills? And do you believe he is showing himself to be ethical?

This is a person that is incompetent with technology, doesn't know how to use a computer, refers to polls as personal opinions that don't stand up to his anecdotal experience, has cheated on his wife numerous times, has poor control over his temper, was unaware of the difference between Sunni and Shia until a few months ago, was unaware of the existence of an Iran divestment bill that had passed the House when he went about proposing divestment as a novel idea, is blindly oblivious of the state of the economy, blatantly lies about or maybe just completely forgets his previous statements and positions which are on record (or Youtube) and refuses having ever made them, and has flip-flopped on immigration reform, religious fundamentalism, overturning Roe v. Wade, his opinion of the Confederate flag, the legacy of Martin Luther King, the length and difficulty of the Iraq war, his stand on torture, the Bush tax cuts, his opinion of the estate tax, his plans for raising/lowering defense spending, balancing the budget, his opinion of dirty money, privatizing social security, investigating the failure of the response to Katrina, protection of the everglades, the moratorium on drilling, etc.

 

[Crosson]

War only exists to make rich people richer, if you join the military you throw your life away and contribute to the economic oppression of non-rich Americans.

There is no real threat to national security, and the truth is that there never was. All the wars the US has ever been involved with, we choose to be involved!

The official navy investigation concluded that the USS Maine sunk because of an engine fire, but the rich folks wanted to go to war so they declared that the spanish had attacked it.

The sinking of the Lusitania by German uboats was the excuse for the US to join the first world war. How often is it reported that the Lusitania was full of ammunition and headed to the UK, and that its passengers were only a kind of "human shield." Clearly, our leaders wanted Germany to attack, because they like war: it makes them richer.

Similarly, our leaders desperately wanted Japan to attack pearl harbor, so that they could do another war. The absurd thing about this one is that we had already cracked the Japanese encryption codes, so we knew exactly when and where they would attack!

If our government cared about keeping its citizens safe, no one would have died in pearl harbor. Unfortunately our government leaders only care about getting rich, so they let the attack happen.

In conclusion, the standard programming we have been fed about 'national security' is total BS, the US has never been seriously attacked without our governments complete approval. The reason that they lie to us is so that they get richer, and so that the poor don't uprise against them. Anyone who joins the military is simply a pawn in this ridiculous lie that oppresses normal citizens.

John Mccain in particular is especially two-faced. He goes so far as to have his commercial say something like "I'm a war hero...but I hate war...so I only do what must be done." Well we lost the war in Vietnam, and America seems to be fine, so I guess John was a 'hero' in a war that was totally unnecessary! The only way Mccain would pull out of Iraq is if the US oil companies decided they did need it anymore, since that is who our government listens to.

 

[Crosson]

I seriously want to understand what the military has personally done to you to make you feel so bad. I'm all ears.

They have spent thousands of my dollars for no real benefit.

 

[LowlyPion]

This is a person that is incompetent with technology, doesn't know how to use a computer, refers to polls as personal opinions that don't stand up to his anecdotal experience, has cheated on his wife numerous times, has poor control over his temper, was unaware of the difference between Sunni and Shia until a few months ago, was unaware of the existence of an Iran divestment bill that had passed the House when he went about proposing divestment as a novel idea, is blindly oblivious of the state of the economy, blatantly lies about or maybe just completely forgets his previous statements and positions which are on record (or Youtube) and refuses having ever made them, and has flip-flopped on immigration reform, religious fundamentalism, overturning Roe v. Wade, his opinion of the Confederate flag, the legacy of Martin Luther King, the length and difficulty of the Iraq war, his stand on torture, the Bush tax cuts, his opinion of the estate tax, his plans for raising/lowering defense spending, balancing the budget, his opinion of dirty money, privatizing social security, investigating the failure of the response to Katrina, protection of the everglades, the moratorium on drilling, etc.

I take it that he won't be getting your vote in the November election?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Sure, you could do a lot of wrong with it, just as any president can now... or has, whichever way you want to look at it. The key is, The President isn't as powerful as people believe. Yes he is a position of power, but he isn't end-all powerful. His power has limitations. Any act which he intends to follow through with, has to go through congress first.

On the other side of the coin, look at how much good can come from it; Everyone will be provided an avenue for education, everyone will learn basic leadership skills, everyone will learn the basics behind our government and the way it operates, everyone will have a job.

Sure, there's a bad side. There's also a bad side to offering free health care to everyone.

Have you stopped to think about the amount of money it would require? The impact on the workforce and economy of having a certain age group of persons all enlisted in the military? The pressure on wages in a workforce whom are all approximately just as qualified as anyone else (once they exit the military)? Perhaps to better illustraite it... Can you imagine a military man having to flip burgers for a living? And do you want fries with that?

 

[B. Elliott]

Have you stopped to think about the amount of money it would require? The impact on the workforce and economy of having a certain age group of persons all enlisted in the military? The pressure on wages in a workforce whom are all approximately just as qualified as anyone else (once they exit the military)? Perhaps to better illustraite it...

Yes, i;ve thought about the money it would require, but since I'm not very good with economics calculations such as that are completely out of my league.

Can you imagine a military man having to flip burgers for a living? And do you want fries with that?

I know two that are currently delivering pizzas. What's your point?

 

[phyzmatix]

Do you honestly believe McCain has strong critical thinking skills? And do you believe he is showing himself to be ethical?

This is a person that is incompetent with technology, doesn't know how to use a computer, refers to polls as personal opinions that don't stand up to his anecdotal experience, has cheated on his wife numerous times, has poor control over his temper, was unaware of the difference between Sunni and Shia until a few months ago, was unaware of the existence of an Iran divestment bill that had passed the House when he went about proposing divestment as a novel idea, is blindly oblivious of the state of the economy, blatantly lies about or maybe just completely forgets his previous statements and positions which are on record (or Youtube) and refuses having ever made them, and has flip-flopped on immigration reform, religious fundamentalism, overturning Roe v. Wade, his opinion of the Confederate flag, the legacy of Martin Luther King, the length and difficulty of the Iraq war, his stand on torture, the Bush tax cuts, his opinion of the estate tax, his plans for raising/lowering defense spending, balancing the budget, his opinion of dirty money, privatizing social security, investigating the failure of the response to Katrina, protection of the everglades, the moratorium on drilling, etc.

We should get a clapping emoticon in this forum...

 

[B. Elliott]

War only exists to make rich people richer, if you join the military you throw your life away and contribute to the economic oppression of non-rich Americans.

That is a biased opinion from someone who has no experience with the military. Half of my family members have served in the military and it did nothing but improve their quality of life.

Your "facts" are wrong.

If you believe it is true, you better prepare yourself for me to contribute to your oppression. Watch out, here I come

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Yes, i;ve thought about the money it would require, but since I'm not very good with economics calculations such as that are completely out of my league.

Well think about the cost of national health care then add national education and housing, food, clothes, pay, ect. for two years out of the life of every single citizen in the country. Discounting those with religeous scruples of course unless you plan on amending that part of the constitution.

I know two that are currently delivering pizzas. What's your point?

Ok then, think of most of them working such jobs because they can't get better jobs because their military service is about as meaningful as having graduated high school. And consider how many would try to stick on for the free ride in the military rather than having to go out in the world and face that.

And what about those that couldn't hack it in the military? How many people drop out during basic? Sorry, nevermind, maybe military service will get you somewhere since anyone who couldn't hack military life would essentially become second class citizens.

Ack... I'm ranting. Sorry. Time for bed.

Edit: "free ride" is bad wording but I hope you get what I mean. Anyway seriously this time. Off to bed.

 

[Crosson]

That is a biased opinion from someone who has no experience with the military.

I have had family members in the military, why do you let that cloud your objective judgement?

Half of my family members have served in the military and it did nothing but improve their quality of life.

Sure, exercise and discipline are good for you. But anyone with a decent amount of willpower can have those things for free. Do you think the improvement in their quality of life justifies all the trillions of dollars the military industrial complex has recieved?

The problem is that you are not looking at the big picture. Individual soldiers do benefit from their military training, but look at how much money gets spent on the military, and look at who gets the money (hint: its not the soldiers).

If you believe it is true, you better prepare yourself for me to contribute to your oppression. Watch out, here I come

If you enlist you will only be one of countless pawns, I am not especially fearful of you.