View Full Version : Why fight for your country?
Why join an army, to be willing to fight, to take the life of others, for others? To me the concept seems ridiculous. From what I have seen when you join the army you cease to become a human and become a tool, an instrument to keep those currently in power in power and to keep those currently with wealth wealthy. In a time of world war invasion of my home country, or a similar situation I might see it as a possibility - but now? Never.
XiPPiLLi
2008-05-20, 05:51
Everyone has their own reason for enlisting.
Personally, I did not join to support my country. I joined to support my family, and if the health, welfare, and financial security of my family means serving the country, then thats what I'll do.
I'm not saying that no one joins to serve their country, there are quite a lot of people who do, and I respect their choices. However, many people join for the education benefits, for the job security, for the family security, or just to get their life started with experience. It looks good on a resume.
But thats just me. Truthfully, not two people have the same reason.
Because they've been conditioned since birth to have nationalistic pride, like unthinking drones beaten into their heads....."I pledge allegiance......". That pride in turn shuts off all common sense and reason in regard to how they view their country, and especially the military supporting it. Look at how society and the media treats this silly life decision. They glamorize the father shipping off for his tour, as if he is some kind of "hero" for putting himself in harms way for what is nothing more than empty rhetoric idealism.
When in reality a more accurate description would be "deadbeat daddy".....in the fact he is willing to abandon his family for whatever nonsensical fairy tale. All because he was "ordered" too. Uh huh, that is some "man" right there ain't it? And how much of a "family" man is he at that, since he is so eager to be a unthinking pawn and moved around the globe on a whim?
Because they lack any sort of moral compass.
It's a career choice.
So is selling meth to school children.
I joined to support my family, and if the health, welfare, and financial security of my family means serving the country, then thats what I'll do.... However, many people join for the education benefits, for the job security, for the family security, or just to get their life started with experience. It looks good on a resume.
You can also provide for your family with the aforementioned meth dealing plan... It may not have all the benefits, but at least the children choose to take the meth.
Killing people, or helping others kill people is never ok because it benefits you. That said, if there were actually a valid reason I'd be signing up right away(they'll really want as many fat asthmatics as they can get).
I hope anyone who joins any military solely for monetary gain dies in a house fire...I think this forum might get me slightly worked up.:mad:
Is the united states military having trouble finding new recruits?
Just a question because the military in my country is having a huge problem finding new recruits, because people would defend their country, but rather not be sent out to some arabic country for who knows what reason. (we're currently deployed in Afghanistan)
*didn't feel like making new thread*
Trueborn Vorpal
2008-05-20, 08:32
Why join a group of "God's warriors", willing to fight, to take their own life and the lives of others, for others? To me the concept seems ridiculous. From what I have seen when you agree to be a suicide bomber and force children to do the same you cease to be a human and become a tool, an instrument to keep those under oppression in oppressive conditions and to keep those currently with wealth wealthy and hiding in caves. I honestly could never fathom this as an option. Ever.
Trueborn Vorpal
2008-05-20, 08:47
Is the united states military having trouble finding new recruits?
Just a question because the military in my country is having a huge problem finding new recruits, because people would defend their country, but rather not be sent out to some arabic country for who knows what reason. (we're currently deployed in Afghanistan)
*didn't feel like making new thread*
The US military is having problems finding new recruits.
Recruiting standards for the army in particular have become scary. In the meantime, the air force and navy are "closed" because of the force population; both branches are getting rid of people as fast as they can. If you get in trouble in either of these branches and receive non-judicial punishment, chances are you're going home on administrative separation.
However, recruiting isn't as bad as compared to other countries: college is usually more expensive in the US, and with the promise of free school a lot of people are willing to step towards enlistment.
On top of that, a lot of states such as Michigan have severe unemployment. The military, on the other hand, pays higher than minimum wage and is much more difficult to get fired from. It comes with free medical care, free food, free housing, and is one of the few places left where you actually get a retirement pension. If you're married, most of these "perks" are extended to your family, too. So the choice is obvious for people who are looking at options such as "sell drugs or be homeless."
fallinghouse
2008-05-20, 09:09
If joining the military is the only legal option for a person to guarantee the health, welfare, and financial security of their family, what you have is a kind of de facto conscription - a conscription which is imposed only upon the poor.
plank00000
2008-05-20, 09:09
eyyyy paki paki taliban
boom bang turbine.
Thanks for clearing that up Trueborn. The abundance of jobs isn't doing the military good here, haha.
Fallinghouse makes a good point, it sounds like a last resort for a lot of people. Which is kind of sad.
Trueborn Vorpal
2008-05-20, 11:33
If joining the military is the only legal option for a person to guarantee the health, welfare, and financial security of their family, what you have is a kind of de facto conscription - a conscription which is imposed only upon the poor.
This is the harsh reality. Most of the people who enlist are poor.
Still, it's infinitely better than prison life.
Slave of the Beast
2008-05-20, 16:21
Why join a group of "God's warriors", willing to fight, to take their own life and the lives of others, for others? To me the concept seems ridiculous. From what I have seen when you agree to be a suicide bomber and force children to do the same you cease to be a human and become a tool, an instrument to keep those under oppression in oppressive conditions and to keep those currently with wealth wealthy and hiding in caves. I honestly could never fathom this as an option. Ever.
Passing the question "Why fight for your country?" on to those who are not here to defend themselves is a feeble, underhand, response, and is strongly sugggestive you feel unable to justify yourself and must therefore attack others.
That's quite aside from the nauseating Amerocentrism.
KikoSanchez
2008-05-20, 17:04
Maybe they are fervent hegemonists or believers in liberalism, or believe there is some moral obligation in a policy of intervention. But I would say a majority of them need the job/money and have atleast some hint of nationalism.
jackketch
2008-05-20, 17:12
But I would say a majority of them need the job/money and have atleast some hint of nationalism.
Ja ja, but it still sounds better in German. I remember my wife's Grandvater saying the same " after the time of inflation it was a good steady job, we could feed our families and we had a little pride in Germany again.
And we were only obeying orders.."
What amuses me most about this topic is how much of society looks at the problem with gangs amongst the youth. They talk about rap music and violent video games being such a huge culprit, but they never wanna talk about the "rah rah" herd mentality that society starts force-feeding kids at birth. Just like Bloods vs. Crips is nothing more than the color red vs. blue....its the same when you start really analyzing nationalistic pride and flag waving. "Yeay....the old red, white and blue kicks everyone's ass so RAWWWRRRR". One cute little color fabric you put on a stick and wave around, the other you wear on your head.
But hey, its all Snoop Dog's fault because kids are trained and conditioned to be unthinking sheep FOLLOWING whatever idealogy that will take them under their wing and "guide" them through life. Right????
jackketch
2008-05-20, 18:17
What amuses me most about this topic is how much of society looks at the problem with gangs amongst the youth. They talk about rap music and violent video games being such a huge culprit, but they never wanna talk about the "rah rah" herd mentality that society starts force-feeding kids at birth. Just like Bloods vs. Crips is nothing more than the color red vs. blue....its the same when you start really analyzing nationalistic pride and flag waving. "Yeay....the old red, white and blue kicks everyone's ass so RAWWWRRRR". One cute little color fabric you put on a stick and wave around, the other you wear on your head.
But hey, its all Snoop Dog's fault because kids are trained and conditioned to be unthinking sheep FOLLOWING whatever idealogy that will take them under their wing and "guide" them through life. Right????
Like I said , don't make much difference whether you place your hand on your heart and swear allegiance to the multi coloured snot rag or stick your arm out at shoulder height and swear allegiance to the multicoloured snot rag.
In the end books go in the fire, neighbours into ovens and Woody Guthrie music is banned.
shadow operative
2008-05-20, 18:26
I think when your communities threatened most of us would develop national pride and i mean threatened as in imminent invasion not some bombings int he London Underground.
Didn't "no" win in that poll?
Didn't "no" win in that poll?
Totse isn't a democracy.
LuKaZz420
2008-05-20, 19:31
Some people fail at life so miserably that they can't even manage to land a job flipping burgers so they need to enlist and allow the army to organize their lives since they're unable to do it themselves.
There are thousands of jobs out there that could help you go through to college and don't require actively supporting your country's imperialistic agenda while adding to the suffering of third worlders.
Seriously the suffering that those idiots have caused in Iraq is sickening, the only thing that makes me feel a little better is knowing that America is getting rid of some of its surplus population, you know the useless white trash that would be on welfare anyway, it's better to have them in body bags than leeching off the state.
Although joining the army has never had any appeal to me, I can understand why people would join and fight for their country. I love America, I really do, even considering a lot of injustices that one could spew out in a retort. Unfortunately, I loathe the people currently leading the country and I think that sways a lot of people's opinion on joining the army. It should. We're fighting a war we were misled into that is wasting lives, resources, and hasn't shown any real progress or profit since it began (but I don't want to open Pandora's Box).
However, let's use WWII for example, I can safely say that the Axis had to be stopped and war was the only language being spoken in terms of accomplishing anything. The people who enlisted knew that Hitler et. all was a threat to our allies, and could have potentially be a greater threat to our country (excluding Harbor here, I'm talking a bit more mass offensive) and most likely joined out of patriotism. Since patriotism isn't filing into lines in support for our leaders, it's simply a love for our country and some people have enough love to justify joining the army to protect us.
There's also the practical reasons but you're right in the fact that there are alternatives in terms of careers, education, etc.
Edit: Oh yeah, even if you don't agree with current events you really should have respect for the people who are willing to die so we can have conversations like these. I know that's cliche, and not -entirely- true but it is something to keep in mind, man.
Oh yeah, even if you don't agree with current events you really should have respect for the people who are willing to die so we can have conversations like these.
Why?:confused:
Trueborn Vorpal
2008-05-20, 20:26
Passing the question "Why fight for your country?" on to those who are not here to defend themselves is a feeble, underhand, response, and is strongly sugggestive you feel unable to justify yourself and must therefore attack others.
That's quite aside from the nauseating Amerocentrism.
There's two sides to every coin. One side has already been defended.
However, let's use WWII for example, I can safely say that the Axis had to be stopped and war was the only language being spoken in terms of accomplishing anything. The people who enlisted knew that Hitler et. all was a threat to our allies, and could have potentially be a greater threat to our country (excluding Harbor here, I'm talking a bit more mass offensive) and most likely joined out of patriotism.
Yeah, that vaunted Nazi Navy put a huge threat into the security interests of the USA, didn't it? Go ahead, I'd love to hear your intelligent idea of exactly how all of them conquering Germans were going to invade America.
Oh yeah, even if you don't agree with current events you really should have respect for the people who are willing to die so we can have conversations like these. I know that's cliche, and not -entirely- true but it is something to keep in mind, man.
It isn't true at all, and is just empty rhetoric on your part. I have a greater chance of being killed in traffic by a soccer mom in her Lexus sipping on a Starbucks than I do any would be foreign meanie.....at least right here, right now. Sorry, but I'm not in the market of blindly "respecting" people just because they are naive and silly in regard to world affairs and ESPECIALLY their own personal well being.
Jaguarstrike
2008-05-20, 23:01
If there were a force fighting for something I was willing to die for, then I would join ranks with them immediately.
Freedom is something I would die for, security is not. Our freedom is not being threatened (by an outside force, at least).
Take that as you will.
jackketch
2008-05-20, 23:15
Edit: Oh yeah, even if you don't agree with current events you really should have respect for the people who are willing to die so we can have conversations like these. I know that's cliche, and not -entirely- true but it is something to keep in mind, man.
baa baaa BAAA baaaa Baa
(thats sheep type noises for the city dwellers among us)
Doublemint
2008-05-20, 23:52
for the lulz
Anti-Vir
2008-05-21, 01:56
It's quite simple, actually. Some join for the benefits, some for personal purpose, some for somebody else's purpose, and some simply want to protect their nation's interests.
It comes down to opinion. Many deem war as primitive and unnecessary, and resort to insult those who join the armed forces, portraying them as supporters of war.
Others, however, are born under a toxic cloud of nationalism, and are raised to love, cherish, and openly support any decisions made by their respective nation.
If you need any confirmation of the military's "Poor guy needs support" statistics, look no further; I am right here, ready to answer.
My attitude changed a lot, however, as time went by. I've learned many hard lessons during training and my tours. I guess, when it comes down to it, one must see both sides of the issue.
countdown2chaos
2008-05-21, 03:19
Two of my friends just enlisted.
Three reasons:
1. after one of my friends leaves the military, he'll be a liscened doctor and not have to gone through college and taken much much longer.
2. also because they just want an adventure reguardless of our horrible politics being controled by the Rothschilds and Rockefellers etc.
3. the guns you can get and keep.
XiPPiLLi
2008-05-21, 03:21
3. the guns you can get and keep.
They seriously think you can keep the weapons?
Edit: Oh yeah, even if you don't agree with current events you really should have respect for the people who are willing to die so we can have conversations like these.
Oh yeah, war has always protected my freedom of free speech. Especially on the internet.
Hint: (in case you didn't get it) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usa_patriot_act)
If there were a force fighting for something I was willing to die for, then I would join ranks with them immediately.
Freedom is something I would die for, security is not. Our freedom is not being threatened (by an outside force, at least).
Take that as you will.
It's hilarious that people still feel threatened by outside forces while their own government that's stripping away their freedoms.
Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither. - B. Franklin
jackketch
2008-05-21, 10:28
It's hilarious that people still feel threatened by outside forces while their own government that's stripping away their freedoms.
Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither. - B. Franklin
Or in the case of the UK using the socalled threat of terrorism to remove the remaining few freedoms we have.
Trueborn Vorpal
2008-05-21, 10:41
Or in the case of the UK using the socalled threat of terrorism to remove the remaining few freedoms we have.
In the US, we have unorganized militias to protect us from that (mainly infringement of the 2nd amendment).
Does the UK have anything like that?
In the US, we have unorganized militias to protect us from that (mainly infringement of the 2nd amendment).
Does the UK have anything like that?
Like a militia could dream of stopping the US army (if it were deployed on it's own soil).
LuKaZz420
2008-05-21, 10:49
My previous post was directed at those enlisting in the army while their country is at peace, not directly threatened by exterior forces or simply involved in conflicts that are not vital for the country's security interests.
If there are twenty German divisions massed at your border then it's noble and necessary to join the army and fight for your freedom and eventually die for it.
There's nobody directly threatening the US right now, Al Qaeda is an artificial threat created by decades of ill-devised foreign policy decisions, if you bring about a policy shift you'll eliminate the very roots of international terrorism.
With military interventions such as in Iraq, you're only extending the pool from which terrorists draw their recruits, by spreading anger, fear and resentment
And to those serving in the Pacific, China is not a threat either, it's just a developing country bent on achieving high rates of economic growth and prosperity.
If there's somebod who should feel threatened it's them not you, just look at how they're encircled, you have troops in their backyard, they don't.
Don't give me the excuse of the defence of Japan either, it's other Asian nations who should be worried about an eventual Japanese rearmament, given the country's colonial past.
North Korea is the only regional threat, but it can easily be dealth with by the R.O.K army, as it is one of the best equipped and trained fighting forces in Asia.
countdown2chaos
2008-05-21, 11:01
They seriously think you can keep the weapons?
for the time your in the military yes?
Slave of the Beast
2008-05-21, 13:49
There's two sides to every coin. One side has already been defended.
If that's your attitude I suggest you stick to your own coin.
In the US, we have unorganized militias to protect us from that (mainly infringement of the 2nd amendment).
Does the UK have anything like that?
The British people aren't generally stupid enough to delude themselves into believing that:
1) A bunch of part-time gun nuts are going to stand a chance against a modern army.
2) Unorganized militias are capable of doing shit against terrorism.
The Iron Fist
2008-05-23, 00:22
The British people aren't generally stupid enough to delude themselves into believing that:
1) A bunch of part-time gun nuts are going to stand a chance against a modern army.
2) Unorganized militias are capable of doing shit against terrorism.
Hmm, ever hear of place called Iraq?
Totse isn't a democracy.
So why even have a poll if you're just going to ignore the result?
In the US, we have unorganized militias to protect us from that (mainly infringement of the 2nd amendment).
Does the UK have anything like that?
Didn't hear about any civilian uprisings when you lost habeus corpus.
soul flayer
2008-05-24, 09:12
And to those serving in the Pacific, China is not a threat either, it's just a developing country bent on achieving high rates of economic growth and prosperity.
If there's somebod who should feel threatened it's them not you, just look at how they're encircled, you have troops in their backyard, they don't.
Don't give me the excuse of the defence of Japan either, it's other Asian nations who should be worried about an eventual Japanese rearmament, given the country's colonial past.
North Korea is the only regional threat, but it can easily be dealth with by the R.O.K army, as it is one of the best equipped and trained fighting forces in Asia.
Err, US force stationed in South Korea are speed bumps, if the North decides to invade. Soldiers stationed there are told this. North Korea can cause mass casualties and wide spread damage to the South, in less than half an hour, even with US forces there.
It's important to have a strong military; history only proves this.
Trueborn Vorpal
2008-05-24, 09:34
Err, US force stationed in South Korea are speed bumps, if the North decides to invade. Soldiers stationed there are told this. North Korea can cause mass casualties and wide spread damage to the South, in less than half an hour, even with US forces there.
It's important to have a strong military; history only proves this.
Not quite.
Not counting U.S. forces, South Korea has more than twice the amount of troops as North Korea. South Korea also has three times as many new enlistees per year as North Korea. North Korean soldiers are poorly fed and generally not taken care of. South Korea could roll right over North Korea and take over.
The problem, however, is that North Korea and Kim Jong Il in particular is fucking crazy. I doubt he would have any inhibition about lobbing missiles across the border at the sign of any sort of aggression. The other problem, as was the case with the Korean War, is Chinese intervension.
You're quite right about all of the western pacific forces simply being a speed bump, but that's for a Chinese invasion.
On a related note, if things were done my way, we WOULD go in to North Korea and shut it down. The people there desperately need help and it's clear that the Mr. Crazy Jong Il isn't going to do a damn thing about it. The reason we don't invade is because of the aformentioned. In the western pacific, the U.S. is more interested in maintaining the status quo rather than helping people.
So why even have a poll if you're just going to ignore the result?
What is totse really about? Debate. Discussion. Conflicting views. The poll helped ignite such discussion.
LuKaZz420
2008-05-24, 10:22
I agree with Trueborn, South Korea can take care of itself, however I seriously doubt that in case of war China would intervene.
I mean the world has totally changed since the 1950's, back then we were in a Cold War climate, every action taken by one side would result in a counter-reaction by the other bloc.
China back then was still ruled by Mao, I mean hell those were the days of the Cultural Revolution, the country was still a revolutionnary communist state bent on exporting its ideals and form of government abroad.
China was isolated, politically and financially, now its economy is integrated and dependent on the international financial system, China would have nothing to gain from helping North Korea.
They are developing and their economic growth is dependent on continued exports and foreign direct investment, all economic ties with the West would be cut in case of war and that would be disastrous for the Chinese developing economy.
jackketch
2008-05-24, 10:49
Not quite.
Not counting U.S. forces, South Korea has more than twice the amount of troops as North Korea. South Korea also has three times as many new enlistees per year as North Korea. North Korean soldiers are poorly fed and generally not taken care of. South Korea could roll right over North Korea and take over.
The problem, however, is that North Korea and Kim Jong Il in particular is fucking crazy. I doubt he would have any inhibition about lobbing missiles across the border at the sign of any sort of aggression. The other problem, as was the case with the Korean War, is Chinese intervension.
You're quite right about all of the western pacific forces simply being a speed bump, but that's for a Chinese invasion.
On a related note, if things were done my way, we WOULD go in to North Korea and shut it down. The people there desperately need help and it's clear that the Mr. Crazy Jong Il isn't going to do a damn thing about it. The reason we don't invade is because of the aformentioned. In the western pacific, the U.S. is more interested in maintaining the status quo rather than helping people.
1.) This forum is not for political debate. A thread perceived as pursuing such discussion will either be closed, deleted, or moved to the appropriate forum at the full discretion of the moderators.
Nuff said.
jackketch
2008-05-24, 10:49
What is totse really about? Debate. Discussion. Conflicting views. The poll helped ignite such discussion.
uhm not according to the sticky it ain't.
Trueborn Vorpal
2008-05-24, 13:39
I agree with Trueborn, South Korea can take care of itself, however I seriously doubt that in case of war China would intervene.
I mean the world has totally changed since the 1950's, back then we were in a Cold War climate, every action taken by one side would result in a counter-reaction by the other bloc.
China back then was still ruled by Mao, I mean hell those were the days of the Cultural Revolution, the country was still a revolutionnary communist state bent on exporting its ideals and form of government abroad.
China was isolated, politically and financially, now its economy is integrated and dependent on the international financial system, China would have nothing to gain from helping North Korea.
They are developing and their economic growth is dependent on continued exports and foreign direct investment, all economic ties with the West would be cut in case of war and that would be disastrous for the Chinese developing economy.
From a militaristic standpoint, the U.S. doesn't want to take any chances. They want to maintain the status quo. That whole 38th parallel thing was BECAUSE of Chinese intervension.
LuKaZz420
2008-05-24, 14:13
I know history man, I know that what happened back then was due to Chinese intervention, what I'm saying is that the world has changed now and China has changed, true they might not be a democracy yet, the communist party is still in charge, however they're a market-driven economy now, to keep investments flowing it is vital for them to maintain internal stability.
Investors flee at the first signs of instability, an aggessive foreign policy would drive business away from China and that's the last thing they need.
Their economy relies on American consumers, any signs of aggression or open hostility to your strategic interests would probably lead to a boycott of Chinese goods or the implementation of trade barriers and that would kill their economy.
Slave of the Beast
2008-05-24, 18:47
Hmm, ever hear of place called Iraq?
1) They aren't what I would describe as unorganized.
2) If you think Iran isn't meddling with affairs in Iraq then you need your ass tanned.
On a related note, if things were done my way, we WOULD go in to North Korea and shut it down. The people there desperately need help and it's clear that the Mr. Crazy Jong Il isn't going to do a damn thing about it.
Out of curiosity what would you plan for before invading?
Star Wars Fan
2008-05-25, 16:13
Like a militia could dream of stopping the US army (if it were deployed on it's own soil).
Due to Posse Comitatus, they can't act as a police force. They can do some of those functions.
Not to mention I see a revolution, or at least civil war. Parts of the military will change sides.
EDIT: and yes, militias are damned good at guerilla warfare. Remember Iraq and Vietnam? The militias will probably have some ex-military guys in them. That, and the shitload of Americans with guns.
Star Wars Fan
2008-05-25, 16:25
And to those serving in the Pacific, China is not a threat either, it's just a developing country bent on achieving high rates of economic growth and prosperity.
Currently. Though China is building its' military, especially space weaponry up.
If there's somebod who should feel threatened it's them not you, just look at how they're encircled, you have troops in their backyard, they don't.
yeah; the US Troops in Ukraine and the Baltic States, once they join NATO and possibly nukes pointer right at Russia from their border is mean
Don't give me the excuse of the defence of Japan either, it's other Asian nations who should be worried about an eventual Japanese rearmament, given the country's colonial past.
true; but Japan really changed after WWII. They haven't militarized heavily and their constitution still prevent their military from leaving their national waters. But that could change over time; they can easily build nukes, if they want to. The Nuclear Taboo still is strong.
Balroken
2008-05-25, 18:12
Some people fail at life so miserably that they can't even manage to land a job flipping burgers so they need to enlist and allow the army to organize their lives since they're unable to do it themselves.
There are thousands of jobs out there that could help you go through to college and don't require actively supporting your country's imperialistic agenda while adding to the suffering of third worlders.
Seriously the suffering that those idiots have caused in Iraq is sickening, the only thing that makes me feel a little better is knowing that America is getting rid of some of its surplus population, you know the useless white trash that would be on welfare anyway, it's better to have them in body bags than leeching off the state.
The ignorance and irony in this post is amazing.
"Yer lets kill the people defending our country and spit on them"
i poop in your cereal
2008-05-27, 17:27
http://druid-consulting.com/Patriot.jpg
Not quite.
Not counting U.S. forces, South Korea has more than twice the amount of troops as North Korea. South Korea also has three times as many new enlistees per year as North Korea. North Korean soldiers are poorly fed and generally not taken care of. South Korea could roll right over North Korea and take over.
The problem, however, is that North Korea and Kim Jong Il in particular is fucking crazy. I doubt he would have any inhibition about lobbing missiles across the border at the sign of any sort of aggression. The other problem, as was the case with the Korean War, is Chinese intervension.
You're quite right about all of the western pacific forces simply being a speed bump, but that's for a Chinese invasion.
On a related note, if things were done my way, we WOULD go in to North Korea and shut it down. The people there desperately need help and it's clear that the Mr. Crazy Jong Il isn't going to do a damn thing about it. The reason we don't invade is because of the aformentioned. In the western pacific, the U.S. is more interested in maintaining the status quo rather than helping people.
You really think the USA is capable of launching another campaign against North Korea?
This isn't some shitty little country with a few beat up old migs, this is a nation with a relatively powerful air force who has seen what is going on in Iraq & Afghanistan and will die to protect their country from suffering the same fate as Iraq/Afghanistan.
The USA simply does not have the conventional capabilities to invade North Korea.
Unless the USA can some how rally the support of China/Russia.
jackketch
2008-05-28, 07:02
I thought this was a forum for military lifestyle not war...
Slave of the Beast
2008-05-28, 08:10
I thought this was a forum for military lifestyle not war...
I guess that's what happens when you take two things which are integral to each other and attempt to separate them.
Star Wars Fan
2008-05-29, 00:00
You really think the USA is capable of launching another campaign against North Korea?
The USA simply does not have the conventional capabilities to invade North Korea.
Yes it does. If it wishes it can. However, currently the US would have to rely on South Korea
LuKaZz420
2008-05-29, 13:33
The ignorance and irony in this post is amazing.
"Yer lets kill the people defending our country and spit on them"
How exactly are US troops in Iraq defending your country?
jackketch
2008-05-29, 13:37
How exactly are US troops in Iraq defending your country?
Sir! Simple Sir! US forces in eye-rack prevent dem thar nasty ay-rabbs and she-eyets from attacking us with their double-ewe-emdees! Sir!
OhhRah!
Slave of the Beast
2008-05-29, 18:00
OhhRah!
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/3/32/KennethWilliams.jpg/300px-KennethWilliams.jpg
OhhRah!
Which reminds me, I must make a thread about homosexuals and "those who serve their country in all career paths", i.e. why those who serve it up the dirt path are excluded.
jackketch
2008-05-29, 18:21
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/3/32/KennethWilliams.jpg/300px-KennethWilliams.jpg
OhhRah!
Which reminds me, I must make a thread about homosexuals and "those who serve their country in all career paths", i.e. why those who serve it up the dirt path are excluded.
"Hi I'm Julian and this my fwiend Sandy" (if you know your Kenneth Williams).
Anyways on the subject of Bona Bona Armed Forces, friend o mine was chucked out of the RAF for being transsexual. She sued and won.
Star Wars Fan
2008-05-30, 18:33
Which reminds me, I must make a thread about homosexuals and "those who serve their country in all career paths", i.e. why those who serve it up the dirt path are excluded.
That's mainly in the US. European nations don't give a fuck.
Like a militia could dream of stopping the US army (if it were deployed on it's own soil).
Not just A militia, the entire fed up population. Besides, how many people in the military are actually willing to fire upon their own countrymen? Not to mention there has to be a few people in the military that are willing to throw a monkey wrench into the works in that case, in addition to the public fighting back. The best the military can do if they were deployed on our own soil is TRY to keep order. If a Middle Eastern country the size of California is able to give our military such a hard time, then imagine how much harder a time our own citizens can give them.
Slave of the Beast
2008-05-30, 22:28
That's mainly in the US.
And this is mainly a US website, so it looks like we got ourselves a party.
Star Wars Fan
2008-05-31, 06:00
And this is mainly a US website, so it looks like we got ourselves a party.
Oh yeah I forgot. But aren't there plenty of UK and Canadians here, and to a lesser extent other EU nations? II guess we need a survey :confused:
Spiphel Rike
2008-06-04, 05:22
Why join an army, to be willing to fight, to take the life of others, for others? To me the concept seems ridiculous. From what I have seen when you join the army you cease to become a human and become a tool, an instrument to keep those currently in power in power and to keep those currently with wealth wealthy. In a time of world war invasion of my home country, or a similar situation I might see it as a possibility - but now? Never.
Riddle me this one friend. Would you rather learn things well in advance and practice them, or go through basic (maybe even IET school) and straight onto a real battlefield?
I know I would like to know what was meant to be going on first, and have a little experience (even if it was just in different training exercises).
Is there something inherently wrong with maintaining a balance of power? I've never understood the hate for keeping things stable. Would you prefer the opposite? A military with the purpose of deposing the government of the country it is meant to serve?
I've been away for Totse for a few months and come back to it and discover this forum. Interesting stuff being said around here.
The reason I am joining the American military is not to defend my nation, it is to defend the liberty of the Iraqi people. I never once cared about the so-called WMDs, or that the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein could potentially be supporting international terrorism. At the beginning of the war, I didn't care about either of those, and both were shown to be false. It didn't affect my opinion of the war at all. All that is needed to justify the invasion of Iraq was the disturbing and inhumane atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein as a matter of policy. Kurds going into woodchippers. Children being burned alive. Political dissidents that want liberty for their people being dragged out of their homes and thrown off 5 story buildings. In short, the cruelty and disgusting acts of evil perpetrated by Saddam's government with his full and knowing support made his government illegitimate. When we invaded Iraq we were not violating a nation's sovereignty, as the Iraq government was not the people of Iraq. Instead, we were destroying a collection of brutal thugs that happened to call Iraq their territory.
We destroyed them, and we are now trying to fix the problems that exist in the region. Make no mistake about me, I'm under no illusions about our government and corporate leaders. They perpetrated this war and are profiting off of it through greed and probably evil intentions. However, in some cases the interests of justice and the big businesses can line up, as I see the case in Iraq. Just as in the Second World War, the business and government interests of this nation have engineered a war to benefit themselves, but this happens to line up with justice as well. The Nazi government was not legitimate, and it had no rights as an institution, just as Saddam's government didn't.
I am not a nationalist, as I support liberty and political freedom. The American government is past the tipping point, and I believe it needs to be drastically altered. However, at this time there are people in a more desperate situation than the Americans are, and I have a clear opportunity to help them in the military.
I am joining the military for many reasons, not one of them having to do with me being a "failure with nothing better to do". I was one of two people from southern Nevada qualified to go to the National Debate Championship in my event, even if you don't believe I'm intelligent there is no denying I have the kind of academic knowledge for me to do outstanding at college. I'd rather not though. For me, serving this cause in Iraq is important enough to risk my life for, as it would be wrong of me to support a cause in a war that I myself wasn't willing to fight for.
^ Just fucking join the Peace Corps.
soul flayer
2008-06-06, 06:38
^ Just fucking join the Peace Corps.
Yeah, if you just want to help people, Peace Corps is a better way to go. The primary job of the military is to break things and hurt people.
Yeah, if you just want to help people, Peace Corps is a better way to go. The primary job of the military is to break things and hurt people.
The military and warfare itself destroyed Confederate slavery, Nazi genocide, Japanese imperialism, etc. Or do you doubt that there are evil people in this world that can only be dealt with through force? The answer to genocide isn't the Peace Corps, it's the Marine Corps.
The military and warfare itself destroyed Confederate slavery, Nazi genocide, Japanese imperialism, etc. Or do you doubt that there are evil people in this world that can only be dealt with through force? The answer to genocide isn't the Peace Corps, it's the Marine Corps.
A hunger strike ended imperialism in India, civilian revolution ended apartheid and a poorly organised show of force removed your precious Marine Corps from south east asia, thrice...
The answer to genocide is History Books...
A hunger strike ended imperialism in India, civilian revolution ended apartheid...
Drops in the bucket compared to what has been accomplished in history against dictatorship through destroying the dictators outright.
...and a poorly organised show of force removed your precious Marine Corps from south east asia, thrice...
Last time I checked the concerted effort of the NVA, Viet Cong, China, etc. during the time wasn't a poorly organized show of force.
The answer to genocide is History Books...
Explain yourself.
Drops in the bucket compared to what has been accomplished in history against dictatorship through destroying the dictators outright.
Yes, It's very easy to install dictators and then over throw them. I'm sure you're training has also giving you the ability to not only match, but go beyond, these non-events which affected more than a billion people...
Last time I checked the concerted effort of the NVA, Viet Cong, China, etc. during the time wasn't a poorly organized show of force.
Who's talking about the NVA or China for that matter?
Explain yourself.
Read a book and realise the problems you describe have been solved throughout history, many times over...
soul flayer
2008-06-06, 07:19
The military and warfare itself destroyed Confederate slavery, Nazi genocide, Japanese imperialism, etc. Or do you doubt that there are evil people in this world that can only be dealt with through force? The answer to genocide isn't the Peace Corps, it's the Marine Corps.
The primary job of any military is to wage war, which is quite the opposite of helping people. Any good thing that comes out of a war, is purely a side effect. Not too mention that for every good side effect, multiple negative ones often accompany them.
If you wish to help poor people, all over the world, then organizations like Peace Corps would be a better choice than the military. If for some reason I got kicked out the military, I'd probably join Peace Corps.
Yes, It's very easy to install dictators and then over throw them. I'm sure you're training has also giving you the ability to not only match, but go beyond, these non-events which affected more than a billion people...
Wasn't talking about the musical chairs dictatorships such as in Africa over the past 50 years. Don't be so shallow.
Who's talking about the NVA or China for that matter?
They were all working towards the same goal, that is, the removal of US forces from SE Asia. The idea that we can separate them and act as if their achievements weren't made possible through a joint effort is laughable.
Read a book and realise the problems you describe have been solved throughout history, many times over...
Of course they have, and the majority of times they were solved has been through destroying the dictators and oppressors through violence.
The primary job of any military is to wage war, which is quite the opposite of helping people. Any good thing that comes out of a war, is purely a side effect. Not too mention that for every good side effect, multiple negative ones often accompany them.
Edit:
Stop beating around the bush and come out and tell us the natural conclusions of what you are saying. Did the defeat of the CSA, Nazi Germany, and Imperial Japan overall benefit or harm humanity? For every good side effect of course there are multiple bad ones, but that still doesn't mean the bad outweighed the good. The only thing worse than Dresden was Auschwitz.
Wasn't talking about the musical chairs dictatorships such as in Africa over the past 50 years. Don't be so shallow.
Wow, neither was I...
They were all working towards the same goal, that is, the removal of US forces from SE Asia. The idea that we can separate them and act as if their achievements weren't made possible through a joint effort is laughable.
3 theatres of war, not that laughable excuse...
Of course they have, and the majority of times they were solved has been through destroying the dictators and oppressors through violence.
You're learning fast, now... How man times did the destroying of dictators involve the World Police in, lets say, the last 3000 years?
soul flayer
2008-06-06, 07:47
Stop beating around the bush and come out and tell us the natural conclusions of what you are saying. Did the defeat of the CSA, Nazi Germany, and Imperial Japan overall benefit or harm humanity? For every good side effect of course there are multiple bad ones, but that still doesn't mean the bad outweighed the good. The only thing worse than Dresden was Auschwitz.
Yeah, sure. We're most likely better off that the Nazi's and Japanese were defeated, and that the North won the American Civil War. However, what happened the most during these wars: helping people, or killing people? The end result of a war may help future generations, but for the current generation fighting the war, there's little else but violence, bloodshed, and pain.
Look at it this way, Byss. Saddam is gone, ethnic civil war will continue whether the Americans are there or not. Couldn't you do a lot more good in the Peace Corps or the UN? If it's genocide you want to stop, your best bet is to volunteer for the UN and hope you get posted in Sudan or Eastern Congo. You're not "stopping genocide" or "overthrowing dictators" by joining the Marines (unless McCain gets elected).
Look at it this way, Byss. Saddam is gone, ethnic civil war will continue whether the Americans are there or not.
How nihilist of you. We can always make a difference, and the Americans in Iraq are making a difference to slow down the ethnic violence going on there. Look at the rates of attacks, suicide bombings, etc. They are still high, yet we have made progress and we will continue to make progress. Yes, this war was poorly planned and for a long time poorly executed, but with our better and more thoughtful commanders, such as Gen. Petraeus, we are going to continue to accomplish in Iraq what we need to be doing.
Iraq was a more stable place under Saddam Hussein. If nothing else, he brought stability. When we destroyed his regime, we destroyed that stability. Leaving now before this stability has been regained would be the gravest crime of all to the Iraqi people. It would be the international equivalent of a hit and run car accident.
If I ask the American men and women in uniform to die for this cause, isn't it hypocritical that I also not stand alongside them and risk dying for this cause?
Star Wars Fan
2008-06-08, 00:19
Iraq was a more stable place under Saddam Hussein. If nothing else, he brought stability. When we destroyed his regime, we destroyed that stability. Leaving now before this stability has been regained would be the gravest crime of all to the Iraqi people. It would be the international equivalent of a hit and run car accident.
Remember some Congresspeople and Military people wondering if Democracy is necessary and they are thinking of only 'stability' for the Iraqi people-e.g. another US-Propped dictatorship (like Sadaam lolz)
Anyone remember those news stuff from last year or so?
How nihilist of you. We can always make a difference, and the Americans in Iraq are making a difference to slow down the ethnic violence going on there. Look at the rates of attacks, suicide bombings, etc. They are still high, yet we have made progress and we will continue to make progress. Yes, this war was poorly planned and for a long time poorly executed, but with our better and more thoughtful commanders, such as Gen. Petraeus, we are going to continue to accomplish in Iraq what we need to be doing.
Iraq was a more stable place under Saddam Hussein. If nothing else, he brought stability. When we destroyed his regime, we destroyed that stability. Leaving now before this stability has been regained would be the gravest crime of all to the Iraqi people. It would be the international equivalent of a hit and run car accident.
If I ask the American men and women in uniform to die for this cause, isn't it hypocritical that I also not stand alongside them and risk dying for this cause?
...and if the person whose car you hit told you to drive away quickly because (s)he did not want you there? Face it, your skills are better put to working for change rather than maintaining stability. You know you can make a bigger difference somewhere else, it's just a matter of time until you cognize that fact.
SWF, I totally remember. Brings up memories of a certain picture:
It showed Cheney (then secretary of Defense or something) saying something along the lines of "we didn't invade Baghdad and overthrow Saddam in the Gulf War because we would have to stay there for years". Sadly a fifteen-minute google search turned up nothing. :(
Star Wars Fan
2008-06-08, 02:14
SWF, I totally remember. Brings up memories of a certain picture:
It showed Cheney (then secretary of Defense or something) saying something along the lines of "we didn't invade Baghdad and overthrow Saddam in the Gulf War because we would have to stay there for years". Sadly a fifteen-minute google search turned up nothing. :(
That was not what I was referring to, but that is true as well.
...and if the person whose car you hit told you to drive away quickly because (s)he did not want you there? Face it, your skills are better put to working for change rather than maintaining stability. You know you can make a bigger difference somewhere else, it's just a matter of time until you cognize that fact.
If we were to leave Iraq tomorrow the country would explode into ethnic violence, the government would become an Iranian puppet state, and something terrible would happen involving the Kurds, probably involving the Turks.
Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe there are other places the US military could be doing a world of good, such as the Sudan or Myanmar. However, since we are deployed to Iraq, that is the best opportunity for myself at the time. The problem with peaceful organizations and operations is that they cannot stop the worst problems that happen in the world. Take Myanmar and the Sudan right now. in both cases, the faction in power would refuse to allow meaningful aid to the people that need it most. They are not accountable to their people, and rule by the sword only. So we must stop them with the sword, as that is all they understand.
Destroying evil doers is helping to cure the disease. Giving aid to victims is treating the symptoms. Both are noble pursuits, but the latter should only consistently be used when the former is impossible. In Iraq we have the option of doing both, and thankfully we are.
If we were to leave Iraq tomorrow the country would explode into ethnic violence, the government would become an Iranian puppet state, and something terrible would happen involving the Kurds, probably involving the Turks.
Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe there are other places the US military could be doing a world of good, such as the Sudan or Myanmar. However, since we are deployed to Iraq, that is the best opportunity for myself at the time. The problem with peaceful organizations and operations is that they cannot stop the worst problems that happen in the world. Take Myanmar and the Sudan right now. in both cases, the faction in power would refuse to allow meaningful aid to the people that need it most. They are not accountable to their people, and rule by the sword only. So we must stop them with the sword, as that is all they understand.
You're taking this at the national level; look at yourself as an individual. What can you do as a part of several hundred thousand maintaining stability as opposed to a small group of several dozen to several hundred helping other individuals as an individual? Quite a bit more, you're not simply another cog, but a human face to place on daily relief.
Destroying evil doers is helping to cure the disease. Giving aid to victims is treating the symptoms. Both are noble pursuits, but the latter should only consistently be used when the former is impossible. In Iraq we have the option of doing both, and thankfully we are.
*posts Abu Grahib pic*
*posts vid of US troops bombing a man's sheep*
*posts vid of US troops making a kid run for several blocks for a bottle of water*
*posts stat about the ridiculously low percentage of Iraqis that approve of the US mission*
You don't win hearts and minds with violence. Name me a government that the US has overthrown where the people of that nation have done better after the overthrow (perhaps Iraq, but once the money stops flowing, it's back to day zero).
You're taking this at the national level; look at yourself as an individual.
The problems we are discussing are national and international in scope.
*posts Abu Grahib pic*
*posts vid of US troops bombing a man's sheep*
*posts vid of US troops making a kid run for several blocks for a bottle of water*
*posts stat about the ridiculously low percentage of Iraqis that approve of the US mission*
You ought to read more carefully what I said in an earlier post about Saddam's government.
All that is needed to justify the invasion of Iraq was the disturbing and inhumane atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein as a matter of policy.
Disturbing and inhumane things are going to be committed by the bad people in any governmental organization. When a government becomes a collection of thugs is when they do this sort of thing as a matter of policy, from the top down. The despicable excuses for soldiers that committed Abu Gharib are now having a free stay in a federal prison. This just illustrates the difference between us and Saddam Hussein's government. We do not approve of that kind of behavior, he did. No governmental thug was discouraged from being a sadistic sociopath under his regime. No one was ever punished or brought to justice. In our military and government, we sincerely try to prevent the terrible people from ruining what is a good operation.
You don't win hearts and minds with violence. Name me a government that the US has overthrown where the people of that nation have done better after the overthrow (perhaps Iraq, but once the money stops flowing, it's back to day zero).
Germany, Italy, France, Japan, just to name a few. There are also the instances of us winning over the hearts and minds with violence by destroying an invading army, such as South Korea, Kuwait, etc.
Star Wars Fan
2008-06-08, 15:18
Germany, Italy, France, Japan, just to name a few.
Nice that you mention those examples. I mean, I'm sure we 'won their hearts and minds' with shit like bombing and nuking their cities to the ground or shit like the Morgenthau Plan. Or PREVENTING their recovery (again, see Morgenthau Plan and German industries). Or refusal to feed starving children.
There are also the instances of us winning over the hearts and minds with violence by destroying an invading army, such as South Korea, Kuwait, etc.
why did April Glaspie allow the US to invade Kuwait? And for Korea, both Koreas have been mounting raids on each other for a while. The South Koreans were not as innocent as you portray them, the North simply got pissed at it and invaded fully. Not to mention South Korea being a dictatorship fo much of its' existence.
Star Wars Fan
2008-06-08, 15:21
I am not a nationalist, as I support liberty and political freedom.
Didn'y you make a long post in Humanities a while ago defending nationalism, saying you ARE a American Nationalist and comparing it to an extended family :confused:
Nice that you mention those examples. I mean, I'm sure we 'won their hearts and minds' with shit like bombing and nuking their cities to the ground or shit like the Morgenthau Plan. Or PREVENTING their recovery (again, see Morgenthau Plan and German industries). Or refusal to feed starving children.
I answered the question posed to me, and I would like you to answer it as well. Are the nations of Japan, Italy, France, and Germany better off now than they were under dictatorship, and do they have a much higher opinion of us than they did under dictatorship? The immediate short term effects of a war are of course not going to be popular among the populace of the affected areas. Also, the Morgenthau Plan was never taken seriously, and you know it. You seem to think we didn't overthrow the government of France, when it seems Vichy France had about the same lack of legitimacy as Saddam's Iraq.
why did April Glaspie allow the US to invade Kuwait?
That's a bunch of non-definitive nonsense and you know it. See what happens with the anti-American crowd? You're damned if you do, damned if you don't. We tell a nation you will moderate a dispute between it and a neighbor, and it is neo-imperialism. We say(as Glaspie said) that we wont interfere in their argument, and we are cold-hearted and supporting war. We never figured Saddam would invade as he did, and he paid the price for it.
And for Korea, both Koreas have been mounting raids on each other for a while. The South Koreans were not as innocent as you portray them, the North simply got pissed at it and invaded fully. Not to mention South Korea being a dictatorship fo much of its' existence.
From my understanding the North Korean invasion was finally sparked by the South Korean refusal to hold new elections(which is a ridiculous demand coming from a communist dictatorship).
Didn'y you make a long post in Humanities a while ago defending nationalism, saying you ARE a American Nationalist and comparing it to an extended family :confused:
I've had some change since then, mostly involving Ayn Rand.
The problems we are discussing are national and international in scope.
No they are not, they are about how you can best do what you'd like to do (prevent suffering, help the cause of liberty, stop genocide). One more man in Iraq won't change shit whereas assisting a UN Clusterbomb picking operation (http://www.vbs.tv/video.php?id=1213949917) or aiding the WFP in Cambodia will help change the lives of individuals. If/When the US does invade another country, feel free to join the Marines again to "fight for freedom" in whatever country we happen to "liberate". Until then, your services are better utilized somewhere else. This is basically my argument, and really doesn't have much to do with global politics.
You ought to read more carefully what I said in an earlier post about Saddam's government.
You ought to google that stat. My point was that the US isn't "winning hearts and minds" by staying in Iraq, but let's get off of this topic since this isn't about politics, but rather about your decision to join the Marines. There's a different forum for that.
Disturbing and inhumane things are going to be committed by the bad people in any governmental organization. When a government becomes a collection of thugs is when they do this sort of thing as a matter of policy, from the top down. The despicable excuses for soldiers that committed Abu Gharib are now having a free stay in a federal prison. This just illustrates the difference between us and Saddam Hussein's government. We do not approve of that kind of behavior, he did. No governmental thug was discouraged from being a sadistic sociopath under his regime. No one was ever punished or brought to justice. In our military and government, we sincerely try to prevent the terrible people from ruining what is a good operation.
...and what does that have to do with anything? Let's get back on topic, plz?
Germany, Italy, France, Japan, just to name a few. There are also the instances of us winning over the hearts and minds with violence by destroying an invading army, such as South Korea, Kuwait, etc.
I think SWF got this well enough. I didn't refer to destroying invading armies specifically because that's not what we did in Iraq. Let's drop this global politics issue and get back to the matter at hand: your life and how it can best be utilized for your personal goals.
DesertRebel
2008-06-08, 23:29
Why fight for my country?
I don't fight for this war, I don't fight for the President, I don't fight for nothing political. I am not a foreign policy pawn, I am here on my own accord.
I don't know, nor do I care why everyone else fights. Thats why I didn't read the other 10 pages of the thread. This is why I fight for my country.
I fight, for the preservation of my home state of Arizona, and the land it belongs to, that is known as The United States of America. I fight, to preserve the idea of the Republic, and our Democratic rights, that are preserved to us in our Constitution.
I fight, for the preservation of my home state of Arizona, and the land it belongs to, that is known as The United States of America. I fight, to preserve the idea of the Republic, and our Democratic rights, that are preserved to us in our Constitution.
*vomits*
Adding...
It's funny how you fight to preserve the constitution in a war that circumvented the procedure (preserved in said constitution) of declaring war... not to mention a war which has created new laws that limit the freedoms of the republic and has found legal refuge from providing the basic human rights of speedy and fair trail of the enemy...
I won't even mention torture... But the virtue with which you have chosen to fight has not been well researched...
These sort of army strong lines are regurgitated so often in this forum, I wonder if you just fight because you're violent and this sort of bullshit is a nice excuse...
.
jackketch
2008-06-10, 10:49
I fight, for the preservation of my home state of Arizona,
Suuure...can't move for Iraqi insurgents in Arizona.
How nihilist of you. We can always make a difference, and the Americans in Iraq are making a difference to slow down the ethnic violence going on there. Look at the rates of attacks, suicide bombings, etc.
That is like going to work, breaking something, patching it up to get it going again and expecting a bonus.
The Iron Fist
2008-06-10, 21:22
I'm fine with fighting for your country, depending what that means. I think you should stand up for your freedom, and fight anyone who tries to take it away from you. I like the American Oath of Enlistment, that the person will defend the Constitution against all enemies, domestic AND foreign.
But if you're just a redneck who says, "fahht for ya country in eye-rak! kill them islams!" you probably deserve to be punched in the face.
Slave of the Beast
2008-06-10, 21:29
I like the American Oath of Enlistment, that the person will defend the Constitution against all enemies, domestic AND foreign.
The enemies America has are usually ones it creates, and arms, for itself. And none of them have ever come close to threatening the Constitution to the extent were attacking them constitutes "defense".
The Iron Fist
2008-06-10, 21:35
The enemies America has are usually ones it creates, and arms, for itself. And none of them have ever come close to threatening the Constitution to the extent were attacking them constitutes "defense".
Yeah, I'd pretty much agree. I think some foreign intervention can be justified at some points, but half of what America does around the world is horseshit. I'd say most of the Constitution's enemies at this point are actually domestic.
I don't know why exactly people join, I do know there is many reasons they do though.
I think it would be an awesome job though to be able to command soldiers like little pawns to take out the enemy.
One question though, when the fuck was this part of Totse made? I never noticed it, but when scrolling down to go to a different one I saw it like WTF?
I don't know why exactly people join, I do know there is many reasons they do though.
I think it would be an awesome job though to be able to command soldiers like little pawns to take out the enemy.
One question though, when the fuck was this part of Totse made? I never noticed it, but when scrolling down to go to a different one I saw it like WTF?
'Bout 2 weeks ago.
Sentinel
2008-06-13, 02:32
On the topic of defeating the Nazis, Japanese, etc:
WWII wasn't the rosy, "noble" war that it is so commonly portrayed as. The United States dropped nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities, killing thousands of civilians. They also firebombed several Japanese and German cities (also killing thousands of civilians). How did that "defend freedom"? There is no such thing as good war. All wars are full of death and destruction. The outcome may be good or bad for the survivors, but is ALWAYS bad for the victims.
And to add to another point, the raison d'être of the military isn't to help out widows and orphans. They don't issue you an M16 when you join the army because it goes well with your outfit...
The United States dropped nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities, killing thousands of civilians.
All to save us from the trouble of either a seaborne invasion of Japan that would have cost millions of lives on both sides, or the Soviets thinking they could throw us out of Europe in a ground war.
They also firebombed several Japanese and German cities (also killing thousands of civilians).
Or perhaps the "civilians" were all willing participants in the Axis war machine.
How did that "defend freedom"?
We destroyed two despicable and tyrannical regimes that actively and consciously committed genocide.
There is no such thing as good war.
Earth isn't one big rose garden. Putting flowers in your hair and dancing under the moon never did shit for humanity. We can choose to wage war against governments with no legitimacy, or we can engage in the evil and despicable wars people often look back on with disgust. Defending people from oppression and evil often needs to be done with force. If we lacked the moral courage and fortitude to do that, we would long ago have been swept under the tide of either the Nazis, Soviets, or some other foreign power. A good war is fought when it has a good purpose in mind.
All wars are full of death and destruction. The outcome may be good or bad for the survivors, but is ALWAYS bad for the victims.
Not even that is true. The German and Japanese people both were liberated from oppressive and genocidal regimes and became democratic and respectable governments, with a prosperous and relatively safe populace. I would call that a good ending for the "victims" of the war.
And to add to another point, the raison d'être of the military isn't to help out widows and orphans. They don't issue you an M16 when you join the army because it goes well with your outfit...
Naturally.
All to save us from the trouble of either a seaborne invasion of Japan that would have cost millions of lives on both sides, or the Soviets thinking they could throw us out of Europe in a ground war.
I'm pretty sure the soviets were on our side...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II
I'm pretty sure the soviets were on our side...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II
What do you think the government leaders and people were thinking about in August of 1945? They sure as shit weren't doubting whether the Axis was going to win or not, that was all done and settled. What was being thought of was what was going to happen once the war was over. It was very clear that the Soviets were not going to be our friends once the dust settled with Germany and Japan. At that point we could all see a glimpse of what was to come, either another huge war or just an intense global rivalry that was technically peaceful(Protip: the global rivalry happened, it was called the "Cold War"). The Soviets were allies of convenience, nothing more.
Part of the reason the a-bombs were dropped was because America wanted to make a show of force to the Soviets, that we had an immensely powerful weapon that they didn't have and we were willing to use it. If it hadn't been for the atomic bomb droppings, there would have been a much higher likelihood of a conventional war breaking out between the Soviets and Allies in central Europe.
What do you think the government leaders and people were thinking about in August of 1945? They sure as shit weren't doubting whether the Axis was going to win or not, that was all done and settled. What was being thought of was what was going to happen once the war was over. It was very clear that the Soviets were not going to be our friends once the dust settled with Germany and Japan. At that point we could all see a glimpse of what was to come, either another huge war or just an intense global rivalry that was technically peaceful(Protip: the global rivalry happened, it was called the "Cold War"). The Soviets were allies of convenience, nothing more.
Part of the reason the a-bombs were dropped was because America wanted to make a show of force to the Soviets, that we had an immensely powerful weapon that they didn't have and we were willing to use it. If it hadn't been for the atomic bomb droppings, there would have been a much higher likelihood of a conventional war breaking out between the Soviets and Allies in central Europe.
Oh I see, so the US killed a hundred thousand Japanese people to stop a bloody war in Europe with Russia...
The Russians had been fighting Germany for the better part of a decade...
I guess the truth doesn't matter when talking about how awesome America is...
Oh I see, so the US killed a hundred thousand Japanese people to stop a bloody war in Europe with Russia...
Yes, that is one of several reasons why. The Soviet military by 1945 had, if I recall correctly, more than 10 million soldiers and a massive wartime economy. If you think a man as crazy as Josef Stalin would not risk another huge war when he had that as his backing you need to do some thinking.
The Russians had been fighting Germany for the better part of a decade...
The Soviets had only been fighting the Germans for 4 years. After a point, once the economy was almost entirely geared towards maintenance and expansion of the military, it didn't matter for how long they had been fighting. Don't for a second think that the Soviet Union was "exhausted" just because they had been fighting the Germans for so long.
I guess the truth doesn't matter when talking about how awesome America is...
Considering how little you apparently know about history, you need to reevaluate the limitations of what you happen to know about what "truth" is.
Also, I like your ad hominem hints at nationalism, kid.
Slave of the Beast
2008-06-13, 09:02
Or perhaps the "civilians" were all willing participants in the Axis war machine.
A baseless assertion and quite a nauseating one at that; maybe the victims of 9/11 were all supporters of warmongering American foriegn policy and deserved to die as a consequence? :rolleyes:
We can choose to wage war against governments with no legitimacy, or we can engage in the evil and despicable wars people often look back on with disgust. Defending people from oppression and evil often needs to be done with force. If we lacked the moral courage and fortitude to do that, we would long ago have been swept under the tide of either the Nazis, Soviets, or some other foreign power. A good war is fought when it has a good purpose in mind.
You didn't engage in WWII until either war was declared on you (by Germany) or you were directly attacked (Pearl Harbour). Prior to that you were quite happy to watch Britain slowly be ground into the dust, whilst profiteering from the sales of war arms and supplies.
"Moral courage and fortitude" my fucking arse.
A baseless assertion and quite a nauseating one at that; maybe the victims of 9/11 were all supporters of warmongering American foriegn policy and deserved to die as a consequence? :rolleyes:
Maybe they were. I can't call it either way, it's a very complicated matter.
You didn't engage in WWII until either war was declared on you (by Germany) or you were directly attacked (Pearl Harbour). Prior to that you were quite happy to watch Britain slowly be ground into the dust, whilst profiteering from the sales of war arms and supplies.
"Moral courage and fortitude" my fucking arse.
It's pretty damn obvious looking back on history that both FDR and Churchill wanted war with the Axis as soon as possible. However, it wasn't politically feasible. With FDR, he essentially goaded the Japanese into attacking us, so as to rally the fickle and largely isolationist public into backing a war against those particular tyrannical regimes.
I also don't know why you are saying this as if I am the apologist of the American government at all times. I don't agree with us getting into the war so relatively late. We should have invaded Nazi Germany when they annexed Austria, at the latest. However, none of this changes that going to war with the Axis was an excellent and just decision.
Also, yes, it did take moral courage and fortitude for FDR to use economic necessity to bait the Japanese into attacking us, what with their oil crisis and all.
WOOHOO!!!
The first thread to hit 100 replies in TWS! Too bad many of the responses go completely AGAINST what the rules of this forum were supposed to be about (no political takes), but considering how this forum was started in the first place.....why should rules get in any one's way, right?
Carry on with your incessant flag waving while spewing whose color dangling from a twig is prettier. Sorry to disturb such "though provoking" discourse.......
Sentinel owl
2008-06-17, 05:14
Please tell me exactly how ALL of the citizens of germany and japan deserved death for supporting their governments?
Do you know what happened to the people who stood up to the governments? I do. (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/images/holocaust00_1.jpg) How does killing millions "liberate" those killed? How liberated do you think the victims of Hiroshima feel? The end of WWII was good for the survivors, and I do agree that, despite the horrors commited on BOTH sides, American involvement was necessary and justified. But anyone who paints a picture of ANY war as heroic, courageous, and just is a damn fool. War is a terrible thing, but good can come from it. It is not something to be taken lightly, and its consequences have deep implications.
Yes, the German and Japanese despots were despicable and tyrannical and all of that un-American stuff, but if that's your logic, why aren't we dropping nukes on countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Sudan, etc?
Don't forget, the Nazis thought they were fighting with moral courage and honor for the greater good of mankind too.
Vietnam was fought with a great purpose in mind, and we all know how that turned out.
But anyone who paints a picture of ANY war as heroic, courageous, and just is a damn fool.
If you think the waging of war doesn't require courage by the men in combat on both sides, you are the damn fool. I wouldn't say war is ever heroic though.
War is a terrible thing, but good can come from it. It is not something to be taken lightly, and its consequences have deep implications.
Agreed, and I never stated otherwise.
Yes, the German and Japanese despots were despicable and tyrannical and all of that un-American stuff, but if that's your logic, why aren't we dropping nukes on countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Sudan, etc?
First, I never believe in the use of weapons of mass destruction except as a last resort. Second, and most importantly, I never once said we shouldn't have invaded those countries, or at least instituted a regime change to a more justice-conscious government. I also never said I have agreed with the American government's policy throughout history. I have only given specific instances from history that I agree with.
Don't forget, the Nazis thought they were fighting with moral courage and honor for the greater good of mankind too.
I fail to see how this matters. If a child refused to acknowledge a jump off a cliff could kill him, and jumped off a cliff and died, it wouldn't make the child's assertion correct.
Vietnam was fought with a great purpose in mind, and we all know how that turned out.
I never once implied or stated that a good purpose always lead to a victory in war.