U.S. military: Defending our Freedom!

[Mechanical Messiah]

Here's something that was brought up in another thread:

Just a Footnote: I spent 9 years active duty service in the Marine Corps, serving as an EOD tech and leaving as a SSGT.

I have been in places and in situations that you could not even begin to imagine in your wildest nightmares. I have put my money where my mouth is, when it concerns laying ones life on the line to protect the individual freedoms of the citizens of this country.. Can you say the same?..

Now, this thread isn't specifically for bandit- this was quoted to illustrate a commonly held notion here in the U.S... which is that our military is "fighting for freedom", "defending freedom", "protecting individual liberties", etc.

What do ya'll reckon? Does the U.S. military fight for out freedoms?

Personally, I have my doubts.

[TheLastMohican]

The U.S. military doesn't exactly fight for our freedom; they don't have to anymore. They just make everyone else too afraid to attack it in the first place. I like knowing that our military is capable of manhandling that of any other country.
As for the freedom of foreigners: The U.N. would be sunk without us. That pretty much sums it up, depending on your opinion of the U.N.

[Reon]

The U.S. military doesn't exactly fight for our freedom; they don't have to anymore. They just make everyone else too afraid to attack it in the first place. I like knowing that our military is capable of manhandling that of any other country.
As for the freedom of foreigners: The U.N. would be sunk without us. That pretty much sums it up, depending on your opinion of the U.N.

I agree with TheLastMohican but preventing an attack is much better than handling one, I still think of it as 'protecting' our freedom. My dad was in the Air Force, my uncle and my Aunt were in the army as well as the uncles son, my cousin and many other members in my family. I might not be patriotic but I do believe in our troops and while I might not support my government on every decision it makes, I'll support the troops whenever they go

[Tocsin]

What do ya'll reckon? Does the U.S. military fight for out freedoms?

Having been a participant in this side discussion on the thread in question, I had a hunch this was going to come up as a topic in its own right.

Lets be very clear about this; the U.S. Armed forces do not serve to "defend freedom," ours or anyone else's. The Armed Forces serve under the command of the Chief Executive to carry out the strategies and goals of the Executive Branch, in theory, (but not in practice) as proscribed by the power of Congress to declare war in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. The United States Armed Forces are instruments used to implement the military policy of the Executive; nothing more; nothing less.

The romantic notions of "defending freedom," and "defending democracy" are used to generate support for the military because ideals of freedom, liberty, and democracy are generally popular in the United States. If the public were told the actual objectives and goals for which the U.S. military have been used, it would be much harder to maintain support for the executive in charge both in the civilian populace and in the armed forces.

In the case of WWII, the U.S. was involved in a defensive war, after being attacked by Japan, and subsequently having war declared against it by Germany and Italy.

From that time on, the application of U.S. military force has not generally been defensive in nature. The involvement of U.S. forces in Korea and Vietnam, as well as support for military operations in a variety of African, Central and South American, and Mideastern nations were not in response to any threats against the United States, or against the freedom of it's citizens, but were part of a Cold War policy of containment outlined by George Kennan, to undermine the authority and prosperity of the Soviet Union by waging in proxy wars to maintain U.S. spheres of political and economic influence around the globe while preventing Soviet political and economic spheres of interests from developing. These wars were part of a struggle for dominance and economic influence. There was never any credible threat to America, or the freedom of it's citizens. The only possible exception to this was the brief period of the Cuban missile crisis, and neither side was aware at the time of how close to the truly unthinkable that conflict came.

In all other U.S. military incursions; Grenada, Panama, The First Gulf War, Bosnia, and the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, at no point did any of these nations present any credible military threat to the United States. None of them even possessed anything close to a capability to do so.

In the only recent event where the lives and freedom of U.S. citizens were attacked; the terrorist attacks of 9-11, there was no credible defense. The attacks were successfully conducted without impediment by U.S. Armed Forces (unless you accept the possibility that flight 93 was brought down by missiles fired by an American fighter as opposed to passengers storming the cockpit).

There are reportedly incident of planned terrorist attacks on the Los Angeles International Airport and other targets which have been thwarted, but these events were not prevented by the military, but through the actions of intelligence, federal law enforcement, and border control agencies.

So in actuality, since World War II no one (or only a very few, as in the case of the failed attempt to rescue the U.S. embassy hostages in Iran in 1979) in the U.S. Armed Forces has ever put their lives on the line or lost their lives "defending the freedom of American Citizens." In all major conflicts where the military has been employed, it has been to preserve economic interests and political influence in various regions across the globe.

As for the romantic jingoistic rhetoric about the nobility of "our soldiers," and "our cause," one of the best warnings in history comes from the lips of Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials after WWII:

"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship... voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

[thod]

I find this idea of the US military as defending freedom laughable.

Do they defend the US from invasion by foreigners? Nope the US lets them in both legally and illegally, any people wishing to invade the US just has to go there.

Exactly which country could invade a country the size of the US? It would take millions upon millions of troops all of which would have to be supplied across the ocean. There is not a single military that would stand a chance even if the US cut its troops to 1/10th of what it has. This is why I find US belligerence to Cuba so funny. Got to watch out, there may be a Cuban invasion of the US. They make a mean cigar and rum over there.

The US forces are not designed for defense of the homeland. They are designed to fight wars overseas. You don't need aircraft carriers for defense of the homeland, you have plenty of flat land for planes to land.

I put it to you that the threat to freedom in the US does not come from overseas military, but from within the US itself. You will hear all about 9/11, yet the damage done by the attack was small. The loss of your freedoms though has been huge. I propose that you have never met a terrorist or known anyone that ever met a terrorist. Yet now your phone is tapped, your rights removed, you can even be water boarded . Those very freedoms you purport to protect are being taken away by your own government under the guise of this external threat. Wake up the threat is not from the men out there, its from the men in here.

[blueback]

The US spends as much on its military as every other country in the world spends on its military combined. Russia is barely a credible superpower and China's not there yet.

So that's it. Our military is the biggest, and because we constantly use it it remains the best.

That means that our citizens are not in danger because no other country would even consider attacking us. . .or making a credible threat to attack us. For example, as much as Iran likes to get attention they're not about to actually threaten us because we could wipe them off the map.

As Sun Tzu explained, the best general is one who can prevent a fight, not one who wins a fight. You can argue that the mere presence of the American military defends the citizens; it's so effective no one even thinks of challenging it.

[Tocsin]

...as much as Iran likes to get attention they're not about to actually threaten us because we could wipe them off the map.


Iran presents the United States with no military threat, period. Even without our military deterrent, they have no means of transporting the troops and weaponry needed for any kind of naval invasion. The missiles they possess barely even present Israel, or parts of Eastern Europe, with any type of credible threat.

They couldn't even mount any effective attack against France or England, let alone the U.S., so the claim that the only thing that prevents them from attack the U.S. is American military might makes as much sense as saying that the only thing that is saving us from invasion by Uraguay is our strong military.

[blueback]

Whatever, dude. I didn't say it was the only thing.

I'm pretty sure I covered the fact that no country in the world is a credible military threat to the US. . .so that would include Iran.

Because of this fact, it's hard to find a modern example of a nation that would attack America if it could, but it won't because we're too strong. I'm pretty sure that Iran's leadership would happily attack the US if they could, so I used Iran as an example.

I assume you aggreed with everything else I said.

[Tocsin]

I assume you aggreed with everything else I said.

I don't agree with the general assumption that the only reason the rest of the world hasn't attacked the U.S. is because of our large military.

Most other nations don't want to attack the U.S. because they have no desire to, we are their biggest customers, or because we owe them billions of dollars that they would never be able to collect if they destroyed the U.S.

[Dreamer]

It is not truth that the Iranian military(or other middle eastern militaries) does not pose a threat to US interests. While it cannot directly challenge the US military it can 1) invade neighbouring countries, don't say that the possibility of US intervention is not a factor in middle eastern politics... 2) it can still tie down the military as has been proven in Iraq and Vietnam. It can demoralize a populace accustomed to 0-casualties conflicts and change the course of an otherwise sound policy.

Or it might just go the traditionnal Iranian way and attempt to infiltrate a terrorist inside the mainland.

That the military is only nescessary to defend the homeland is the romantic notion. If it is used to just that purpose,it's a failure. The well-being of the US and the western world is tied to the well-being of the rest of the world.

In that state,hostile nations are put at a signficant disadvantage,logistics become more difficult as safe havens dry up, financial support more scarce, training is done on the spot rather than in a rear area, longer range bombers have to be developped to make up for the lack of bases nearby US coast,etc.

An expansion of the Iranian sphere of influence inside the muslim world would be a disaster for its economy.

Is the expansion of the US sphere of influence conducive to freedom? Considering the number of dictatorships that have sucessfully been converted to democracies under the US sphere vis-a-vis the Soviet and Islamic one, I think that the US does its part to expand "freedom". No weak state has ever been free for long.

[Saint]

... illustrate a commonly held notion here in the U.S... which is that our military is "fighting for freedom", "defending freedom", "protecting individual liberties", etc.

What do ya'll reckon? Does the U.S. military fight for out freedoms?

Funny, I thought they were getting paid.

Is that why we have 22 of those > $1 billion B-2 bombers with nuclear payloads? For "Defense?" No idiot would ever use nuclear weapons on their own soil, but we have them.

If the military's job is to "defend our freedom" (whatever that means), then they're certainly more than willing to destroy other people's freedom to do it. Suddenly I don't feel so honored.

[Reon]

It is not truth that the Iranian military(or other middle eastern militaries) does not pose a threat to US interests. While it cannot directly challenge the US military it can 1) invade neighbouring countries, don't say that the possibility of US intervention is not a factor in middle eastern politics... 2) it can still tie down the military as has been proven in Iraq and Vietnam. It can demoralize a populace accustomed to 0-casualties conflicts and change the course of an otherwise sound policy.

Or it might just go the traditionnal Iranian way and attempt to infiltrate a terrorist inside the mainland.

That the military is only nescessary to defend the homeland is the romantic notion. If it is used to just that purpose,it's a failure. The well-being of the US and the western world is tied to the well-being of the rest of the world.

In that state,hostile nations are put at a signficant disadvantage,logistics become more difficult as safe havens dry up, financial support more scarce, training is done on the spot rather than in a rear area, longer range bombers have to be developped to make up for the lack of bases nearby US coast,etc.

An expansion of the Iranian sphere of influence inside the muslim world would be a disaster for its economy.

Is the expansion of the US sphere of influence conducive to freedom? Considering the number of dictatorships that have sucessfully been converted to democracies under the US sphere vis-a-vis the Soviet and Islamic one, I think that the US does its part to expand "freedom". No weak state has ever been free for long.


If I read correctly, the person you are speaking of didn't say Iran can't attack U.S. interest, he said it couldn't attack mainland America. I don't think our 'military' is all to it when it comes down to why other countries don't attack us. I personally believe its mostly about the economy, it cost a ton to wage war, and then it'll probably cost more after a nation of consumers just simply stop consuming.

Another thing, big countries never 'just' attack big countries however big countries can take small countries with little oppositions

[SirJac]

I always wondered, exactly what freedoms is the US military currently defending?

[blueback]

All other things being equal, the presence of a powerful military discourages a large attack.
Because a large attack is not even worth planning, the country is safer.
Therefore, the way the citizens of the country live is assured against the possibility of being changed from outside.
Since Americans live in a "free" society, and the mere presence of the American military discourages anyone from even thinking about attacking America, the American military is defending freedom.

The phrase isn't all hot air; there is a strain of logic supporting it.

[ScottH]

As already said, "Defending Freedom" is a romanticized term. The reality is that the military serves the Executive branch, who's responsibility it is to serve America's "interests."

However, "interests" is loosely defined. Clearly, safety from foreign invasion is our "interest." But things get gray when one wants to say "taking over a nation to gain control of oil" is in our interest (not claiming such, only giving an example). And, those gray areas are exactly what we have tools like propoganda for :-)

So, the military "defends your freedom" to the extent that you believe the Executive branch serves your interests.

[PeterBristolUK]

In my opinion, which I have to admit is not a tremendously educated one in this field....

The US only ever gets involved for profit, they fund both sides of wars, possibly create 911 themselves all in an effort to increase profits. I have watched a film called "The End Game" it is all about the Bilberg group trying to engineer a new world order. Now whther this is the case or not a lot of the things revealed in the film are very interesting. Mostly concerning the Rothchilds and the Rockefeller families doing whatever they can to gain wealth and power.

Have any of you guys seen the film, and if so do you agree with it. Again I will freely admit I am not to know if all the facts in the film are true, but then how do you know what is true.

There is also a film called Zeitgeist which is very interesting and goes along the same lines, but also incorporating organised religion into the equation.

As you guys say...What do y'all think!

[Saint]

All other things being equal, the presence of a powerful military discourages a large attack.
Because a large attack is not even worth planning, the country is safer.
Therefore, the way the citizens of the country live is assured against the possibility of being changed from outside.
Since Americans live in a "free" society, and the mere presence of the American military discourages anyone from even thinking about attacking America, the American military is defending freedom.

The phrase isn't all hot air; there is a strain of logic supporting it.

That's fair enough, but it doesn't justify abuse of armed forces (imperialism, "nation building", "protecting [country]'s interests").

And I'm not so sure a military with half the budget couldn't simply achieve the same desired effect of assured retaliation.

[blueback]

I was just responding to the criticism of the phrase. I explained that the phrase is legitimate.

[Dreamer]

And I'm not so sure a military with half the budget couldn't simply achieve the same desired effect of assured retaliation.

You could most likely do it. The West have pretty much favored the approach of overwhelming nuclear retaliation instead of the much more costy approach of focusing a super-large conventional force during the Cold war.

Cutting back on conventional forces is all fun and giggles but then you would probably lose the capacity to intervene in a wide range of situations which does not require radioactive annhilation of the offending nation(for example,to insure the flow of essential economic goods on the global marketplace). The US military is already stretched pretty thin, I do not think that lowering the military budget is the way to go.

[Synamon]

...(for example,to insure the flow of essential economic goods on the global marketplace)...

Since you gave this example I assume you think it is a U.S. military function? So it's not all about protecting "freedoms", there is at least an element of protecting U.S. economic interests.

[Dreamer]

The control of certain goods is intrisically linked to the stability of US political institutions. You can't have a good army without being able to afford it, I think everybody can agree that a military is nescessary if only as a guarantee of massive retaliation against the offending group. And 2nd, it denies the US/Western enemies(namely the mullahs, in these circunstances) access to these assets.

In times of hardship, political indoctrination becomes easier.Far-reaching shifts to the left and right can be seen in countries in significant economic difficulties.
In the long run,you can't uphold democratic values if the people are not physically secure.

[Tocsin]

What an eye opener this thread has been. Though most of the responses have been reasonably perceptive, there are a few things that have been said which strain credulity. Such naivete would be amusing, if the implications of its broad effects were not so frightening.

It is not truth that the Iranian military(or other middle eastern militaries) does not pose a threat to US interests...
That the military is only nescessary to defend the homeland is the romantic notion. If it is used to just that purpose,it's a failure. The well-being of the US and the western world is tied to the well-being of the rest of the world.


"National Interests" is a phrase that has nothing to do with any notion of freedom, other than the freedom to imperialistically invade sovereign nations and set up puppet regimes to act as client states - furthering U.S. political control and economic exploitation of those nations.

"When people talk about "the national interests," that's just propaganda. It means the interests of the rich and powerful..."
--Noam Chomsky

YouTube - Our Own Private Bin Laden - 6/6 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Is the expansion of the US sphere of influence conducive to freedom? Considering the number of dictatorships that have sucessfully been converted to democracies under the US sphere vis-a-vis the Soviet and Islamic one, I think that the US does its part to expand "freedom".

Boy, do you have a lot to learn...

In 1937 The U.S. backed rigged elections in Nicaragua and supported the rise of the Somoza dynasty, a series of pro-western puppet dictators.

In 1953, the U.S. backed the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran and installed Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi as a pro-westen puppet dictator.

In 1954, the U.S. backed the overthrow of democratically elected president Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala and supported the rise of pro-western puppet dictator Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas.

Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega was a CIA operative from the 1950's through the 1980's.

In 1960, the U.S. participated in the overthrow of Patrice Lumumba, the democratically elected president of The Democratic Republic of the Congo, and supported the rise of dictator Mobutu Sese Seko.

In 1960's, The U.S. backed the overthrow of General Abdel Karim Kassem in Iraq and helped with the formation of the Baath Party and the rise of Saddam Hussein as a pro-westen puppet dictator.

In 1973, the U.S. covertly assisted Auguste Pinochet in the overthrow of democratically elected president of Chile, Salvador Allende, and aided in his rise as the repressive, pro-western puppet dictator of Chile.

After the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the U.S. installs former Unocal consultant Hamid Karzai as a pro-western puppet dictator.

If you can put forward a list of dictatorships that the United States has converted to democracies, I would be happy to inspect it.

Since Americans live in a "free" society...

I'm glad you had the sense to put the word free in quotation marks, considering the conduct of the Bush Administration in shredding the Bill of Rights in the last eight years.

The phrase isn't all hot air; there is a strain of logic supporting it.

Well, it certainly does strain logic, I'll give you that much.

[blueback]

I already laid out the logical support for the phrase. We call our society free because, relative to the majority of the world, it is. Since the mere presence of our overwhelming military might is enough to preclude anyone from even thinking about attacking us directly, our military defends our status quo, which is freedom. QED.

I haven't read much of Noam Chomsky, but what I have read is kind of funny. I get the impression it's all just hot air to sell books.

The simple fact is that states exist because they are a good way to provide security and stability to a lot of people. Most people don't feel that they will get enough self-satisfaction out of not being ruled by anyone to offset the amount of worrying they will do. Predictability is more important than personal fulfillment.

[Dreamer]

Tocsin, you seem to complain a lot but you do not offer much of an alternative solution. (I suspect because you know that an alternative course of action would have resulted in a pro-soviet foreign policy, or dictatorship).
You can't make foreign policy without breaking a few eggs. Most of the victims of US backed coups were either communists or communist sympathizers.

As for your list of democracies. Simply pick a country within either the Asian or European continent. If it's a US ally, review its history,and ask yourself whether this country would have attained democracy without US support and protection from Soviet intervention and subversion.

And then pick a map from 1969 and 1989, pick a country underneath Soviet influence, and ask yourself whether you want said influence to expand. As for Karzai,I would like to hear your evidence as to how he is a "puppet dictator".

What an eye opener this thread has been. Though most of the responses have been reasonably perceptive, there are a few things that have been said which strain credulity. Such naivete would be amusing, if the implications of its broad effects were not so frightening. I like your grandiose style of writing to hide your lack of substance.


"National Interests" is a phrase that has nothing to do with any notion of freedom, other than the freedom to imperialistically invade sovereign nations and set up puppet regimes to act as client states - furthering U.S. political control and economic exploitation of those nations.

"When people talk about "the national interests," that's just propaganda. It means the interests of the rich and powerful..."
--Noam ChomskyStalin said something along the line of "our love of quotations highlights our ignorance".

Freedom is naturally related to power. No state can survive if it doesn't have enough cojones to ward off foreign agression.

[onlyparallel]

Stalin said something along the line of "our love of quotations highlights our ignorance".

I find it ironic that you try to prove that quotes are overused with a quote.

Freedom is naturally related to power.
No state can survive if it doesn't have enough cojones to ward off foreign agression.

True. As a Canadian, I find it easier than maybe most of you to look at the American military objectively. The sheer size and reputation of your (I use ‘your’ because so far it seems as if everyone involved with the thread is American) country protects your freedoms from foreign powers without your military actually having to do anything. Also, I think it is rather silly to believe that all of the action your military takes is necessary to your freedoms. Perhaps in this respect the idea of protecting your freedom is used as a ploy to get your support so the military can protect your country’s interests. Indeed, there’s nothing wrong with your country protecting its interests (as long as it doesn’t take away the freedoms you hold so dear from someone else- though often it does) but there is something wrong with the way it is explained to you by your leaders.

[Tocsin]

Tocsin, you seem to complain a lot but you do not offer much of an alternative solution.

This thread is not about offering solutions, it is a critical evaluation of whether the notion that our Armed Forces serve to "defend freedom" has any merit.

That is what I have been doing.

(I suspect because you know that an alternative course of action would have resulted in a pro-soviet foreign policy, or dictatorship).

No, I think the Soviet Union was doomed to internal collapse due to internal corruption, which is the same fate I expect will happen to the United States in the not too distant future.

You can't make foreign policy without breaking a few eggs.

Go here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) if you want to see pictures of "a few broken eggs."

Most of the victims of US backed coups were either communists or communist sympathizers.

Do you listen to Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly?

You obviously didn't read the list of democratically elected governments that we have overthrown that I provided.

As for your list of democracies. Simply pick a country within either the Asian or European continent. If it's a US ally, review its history,and ask yourself whether this country would have attained democracy without US support and protection from Soviet intervention and subversion.

The list... read it again... democratic governments before U.S. intervention (in most cases)... militaristic dictatorships after U.S. intervention... reading with comprehension isn't that difficult, is it?

As for Karzai,I would like to hear your evidence as to how he is a "puppet dictator".

We do it all for you, dreamer...

"The man who spotted Karzai's leadership potential and recruited him to 'the fold' was then RAND (the Santa Monica, California think tank, mostly conducting contract research for the Pentagon) program director, now US National Security Council member and special Bush envoy to Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad. Like Karzai, Khalilzad is an ethnic Pashtun (born Mazar-i-Sharif, PhD University of Chicago). He headed Bush's defense department transition team, and served under present US Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz in the Reagan State and Bush I Defense Departments. Also like Karzai (whom Mullah Omar once asked to represent the Taliban at the UN), Khalilzad early on supported and urged engagement of the Taliban regime, only to drop such notions when the true nature of the regime became patently obvious by 1998. And one further thing both men have in common is that in 1996/97 they advised American oil company Unocal on the US$2 billion project of a Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan pipeline. In 2000, Khalilzad invited Karzai to address a RAND seminar on Afghanistan; the same year, Karzai also testified before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee and met periodically with Christina Rocca, then a Senate aide (to Kansas Republican Sen Sam Brownback), now the assistant secretary of state for South Asian affairs. 'To us, he is still Hamid, a man we've dealt with for some time,' said a state department official.

"Such close connections to the US foreign policy, security and intelligence community lay Karzai open to the charge of being an American puppet - a dangerous charge in Afghanistan where leaders overly beholden to foreign regimes have not fared well, as the fate of Soviet-imposed ones attests. But Karzai has other credentials that put him in better stead, and to the extent he can bring in the bread (foreign aid and investment), he will likely be able to live down the 'American stooge' tag opponents are trying to pin on him."

Hamid Karzai - SourceWatch (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

By the time a United Nations-sponsored conference met to set up an interim government for Afghanistan, Mr Karzai had strong American backing and was clearly being groomed for leadership.

Mr Karzai's critics have accused him of being an American stooge - particularly after the way in which the US intervened ahead of a second loya jirga in June 2002 to announce that the former king would not oppose Mr Karzai as a candidate for head of state.

BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | Profile: Hamid Karzai (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

I like your grandiose style of writing to hide your lack of substance.

Thanks, though your writing does lack a sense of style, your own lack of substance is at least comical, and I can appreciate clowns as much as the next guy.

Oh, by the way, I'm still waiting for that list of democracies that the U.S. has helped install across the globe.

Stalin said something along the line of "our love of quotations highlights our ignorance".

Really? I've never heard that. Care to provide a source? Or will I just have to settle for your "lack of substance" as an excuse not to back up your claims.

Thanks for the laughs. Keep it up. :laugh:

[blueback]

Well, it's a well established bit of wisdom among those 'in the know' that state leaders never go to war for the reasons they give to the public.

However, that is not an inherently bad thing.

Also, are you trying to hint that you know how to establish exactly what actions are just barely necessary for our freedoms? I don't know exactly where the line is, so I think it makes sense to err on the side of caution.

EDIT
Oops, that got posted before I got mine posted.

[Dreamer]

This thread is not about offering solutions, it is a critical evaluation of whether the notion that our Armed Forces serve to "defend freedom" has any merit. The two subjects are intrinsically linked. If the forces do not optimally "defend freedom"(or not at all,as you seem to think) but that no better alternative can be found, then you have little business acting like a moral crusader.


No, I think the Soviet Union was doomed to internal collapse due to internal corruption,Hindsight is nice. Now go tell that to Truman on the eve of January 1951.


which is the same fate I expect will happen to the United States in the not too distant future. lol, okay, don't give me any stock advice.


Go here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) if you want to see pictures of "a few broken eggs."
Well shit happens. It's just too bad it didn't happen to certain left-wing leaders of the American kind.


You obviously didn't read the list of democratically elected governments that we have overthrown that I provided.

The list... read it again... democratic governments before U.S. intervention (in most cases)... militaristic dictatorships after U.S. intervention... reading with comprehension isn't that difficult, is it?
Democracy is about the long term. If the people in question is going to elect a COMMUNIST(as were most "victims" you outlined in your list were), or a NAZI, then a dictator which will provide the nescessary framework for democracy to survive in the long run is preferable. If you are too short-sighted to see this simple logic, shoot yourself.


Hamid Karzai - SourceWatch (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | Profile: Hamid Karzai (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
You used the term "puppet dictator". That Karzai is close to the Americans is no great secret. It doesn't make him a dictator(he was after all, democratically elected ans have not shown a will to stay indefinetly in power). As Diem(another "puppet"), he pulls his own strings. He has made overtures toward Iran and the Talibans which are not welcome by Washington.


Thanks, though your writing does lack a sense of style, your own lack of substance is at least comical, and I can appreciate clowns as much as the next guy.

Thanks for the laughs. Keep it up.

I think that your constant berating is the fruit of insecurity about your intellectual prowess.

It makes you feel better, you are trying to merely be as unpleasant as possible as to steer away reasonable people which would have otherwise been pleased to engage in political discussion.

Alas,are you going to continue upon this intellectually dishonest path?

Btw,I did not say that your writing had style,I said it was grandiose, which is the mark of a person trying too hard, not of one with any writing ability.


Oh, by the way, I'm still waiting for that list of democracies that the U.S. has helped install across the globe.I'm sorry,do I owe you anything?

As I said, follow the method I've outlined in the other post and you will find that list all by yourself.


Really? I've never heard that. Care to provide a source? Or will I just have to settle for your "lack of substance" as an excuse not to back up your claims. Is that really important? Are you so hung up on the authorative source(a logical fallacy, by the way) that you will completely miss the idea behind the quotation?

Think Bruce Lee "It is like a finger pointing away to the moon.
Don't concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory"





Dreamer added to this post, 17 minutes and 0 seconds later...


Also, I think it is rather silly to believe that all of the action your military takes is necessary to your freedoms. Perhaps in this respect the idea of protecting your freedom is used as a ploy to get your support so the military can protect your country’s interests.
A country's interests and its freedoms are intrinsically linked. You can't have a weak country that is free for long at the same time(that is without a strong "big brother"...e.g. the United States).

It would be fairer to say that having the military protect american assets overseas is a far more indirect and discrete way of protecting freedom than say,repealing a fanatical and equally well-armed invader.


Indeed, there’s nothing wrong with your country protecting its interests (as long as it doesn’t take away the freedoms you hold so dear from someone else- though often it does) but there is something wrong with the way it is explained to you by your leaders. I agree with this, the process as to how economic interests are linked should be more throughouly explained to the public by the policymakers.

Unfortunatly, western culture at this point does not permit anything but the crudest form of propaganda either in support or against military action. Politicians are afraid to take a strong stance away from the middle ground.

[PeterBristolUK]

You guys talk about being free and about other countries not having 'democracy'(yes i did use quotations) but you (the US) and we (the UK) have no freedom. The police can walk into your house whenever they want, accuse you of being a terrorist and whisk you off to Guantanamo without a blink of an eye. Yes I do accept other countries have less structured governments but also they have less structured police forces and can't or don't do halt the stuff the UK/US can do towards it citizens.

Freedom is a made up concept and war simply = one thing ....$$$

[Karamazov]

The slogan itself lost all relevance after WWII.(WWI?)

I won't repeat what's been posted but the military has never been used to deflect any external threat since WWII. All operations thus far have been preemptive without just cause or simply monetary in nature (resources, contracting, etc.)

Having the largest military force is simply a deterrent.

[blueback]

OH MY GOD! MY EYES ARE FINALLY OPEN1!!1!

But seriously. . .

I'm well aware that the US isn't perfect (yet), but I have no intention of leaving. The simple fact that a few abuses of power happened to a few people and EVERYONE in the world knows about it is why I'm staying. In the "other" countries I talk about no one would have ever heard about it, or cared, if 10 times as many people had been treated the same way. The US political system is open enough, and good enough, that any abuse of power seems like a big deal. The same abuse of power in America wouldn't even be a blip on the radar in much of the world.

It's like the service academies. They have a rate of "incidents" (drinking, sexual assault, cheating etc) that is orders of magnitueds lower than civilian colleges. But because so little happens there, the smallest or fewest events seems like a bid deal. One rape at a service academy and the world is ending, but drive down the street ten minutes to the local community college and you'll find ten times as many that you never hear about.

That is why your bumper sticker rhetoric (war = $$$) is worthless. It is a cynical, surface level impression that is purely emotional. There is no understanding behind it. All it betrays is that you would rather be able to say "I told you so" when the next bad thing happens.

[PeterBristolUK]

You can't deny that war = profit for corporate America





PeterBristolUK added to this post, 1 minutes and 42 seconds later...

I am not claiming this to be true as I wasn't alive and am not that up to date with history (if that isnt a contradiction in itself) but the US supplied the fuel for the German planes in WWII...figure that out

[Tocsin]

It's just too bad it didn't happen to certain left-wing leaders of the American kind...

...If you are too short-sighted to see this simple logic, shoot yourself.


When I come across people who toss out violent death threats against people with different political viewpoints, and thoughtlessly do so as a joke, It is more than obvious that I am dealing with a typical, militaristic, nationalistic stooge.

You've made it more than clear who you are and what your values are. There is no point bothering to reason with you, or inform you. I've little doubt that your brown shirts are all well pressed and your jackboots are polished.

If it ever comes to it, if Der Fuhrer orders you to stomp that boot in the face of some third world child while his cronies pillage their nation, I am sure you will be too happy to comply, and sleep well that night knowing you have done your part to "defend freedom."

Thanks for providing the useful illustrations of what notions of national supremacy and manifest destiny entail in terms of personal morality.





Tocsin added to this post, 8 minutes and 19 seconds later...

...a dictator which will provide the nescessary framework for democracy to survive in the long run is preferable.

You can't make your ideals much plainer than that.

Just out of curiousity, can ANYONE here provide an example of a dictator who created an honest democracy?

[kubrickfan]

I agree with TheLastMohican but preventing an attack is much better than handling one, I still think of it as 'protecting' our freedom.

Isn't that the wise words of Sun Tzu?

I think our military as great as it is, does not exactly adapt well to changing battlefields. It either finds a way to create a better bomb or a gadget to enhance a soldiers ability. Tactics I think are the better way to go, so, if a soldier is willing to sacrifce his freedom so I may go work all snug and sound, then that should be the way the military should run. 'Freedom: our source of pride.'

[Dreamer]

Oh no, I've pissed off Tocsin.

Will his majesty please forgive my rough handling of his delicate feelings?


Just out of curiousity, can ANYONE here provide an example of a dictator who created an honest democracy? South Korea, Taiwan, Chile, Japan, were all former pro-US dictatorships which couldn't have flourished without US help...And of course,Iraq & Afghanistan.

South Vietnam showed some signs of (limited) liberalization at the end of its life.

[Mechanical Messiah]

I'm glad to see that quite a bit of discussion has come of this.

I'd like to throw one fact into this thread:

The Unites States imprisons more people per capita AND in sheer numbers than any other country on the planet. A LOT more.

Now, I know that "freedom" is hard to quantify... but couldn't one argue that the 'freedom' of a given country would be inversely proportional to the number of people in cages? Does that make the U.S. the LEAST free country on the planet?

[blueback]

The people in our prisons live better than half the population of the world and most of them are only in prison for a short time. So, you know, I guess you could stretch the point but I don't think it fits.

[Mechanical Messiah]

We aren't discussing living conditions- we're discussing FREEDOM.

And I'm not talking about the number of people who have ever been incarcerated (though I've no doubt that we lead the world in that statistic, too). I'm talking about the number of people who are in a cage RIGHT NOW.





Mechanical Messiah added to this post, 5 minutes and 48 seconds later...

Blueback, I agree with your point that the simple PRESENCE of the U.S. military deters most any potential attack. True enough.

But let's look at what the military DOES (besides simply EXIST as a deterrant).

First- for the sake of discussion, let's say that certain basic legal concepts like habeas corpus, along with the Bill of Rights, represent a fairly complete list of "individual freedoms".

Now, can anybody name any major post-WWII U.S. military action that involved the defense of any of these "individual freedoms"? (situations where individual freedoms were directly threatened, and the military addressed said threat by doing somehting other than existing) I'm sure we could come up with a couple of international hostage situations or something like that.

Best I can tell- very few U.S. military actions since WWII (which isn't exactly cut and dry- but I don't care to discuss it right now), had ANYTHING to do with my FREEDOM.

I'm not saying that the U.S. military is the embodiment of evil or anything. I'm just pointing out that this "fighting to defend your freedoms" jingo is complete and utter bullshit.

[blueback]

Yeah, yeah. You can try to redefine the situation all you want.

Can you come up with a flaw in my reasoning? If not, then the phrase "the US military defends freedom" is accurate. It might not be all-encompassing or specific enough for you, but it is accurate.

As for specific events; does leading the nation in integrating blacks count? Also, the US military conducts a lot of operations "other than" war, like humanitarian aid. You know, when we're not busy killing babies.

However, at the end of the day the military is commanded by the civilian politicians. We can give them all sorts of good advice and then still have to follow their idiotic orders. And that is how it should be. A military that isn't subservient to civilian control is a coup waiting to happen.

[Tocsin]

South Korea, Taiwan, Chile, Japan, were all former pro-US dictatorships which couldn't have flourished without US help...And of course,Iraq & Afghanistan.


While the Republic of China's Chiang Kai-shek was indeed a militaristic dictator, he lost control of mainland China to the Communists during the Civil War. He still remained in control of Taiwan and still remained a dictator throughout his life. It was his son Chiang Ching-kuo, who began to liberalize the government of Taiwan, and it wasn't until after his son's death in 1988 that the lifting of the last vestiges of martial law began. It hardly makes since to credit the democratization of a nation to a dictator for events that took place after their deaths and the dismantling of their dictatorial legacy by the survivors.

Chile under U.S. backed dictator Augusto Pinochet was renowned for its brutality. Following the murder of elected president Allende in 1973, Pinochet had thousands of opposition figures murdered, and then tens of thousands of Chileans were imprisoned and tortured to consolidate his power. Pinochet set up a phony constitution through fraudulent elections in 1980 and had himself "elected" president of the nation. Pinochet did set up a "free market" economy in Chile, and gradual reforms did lead to his ouster as the leader of the nation. Pinochet spent his last years on earth as a political exile in Britain fighting extradition requests from Spain, and then fighting charges of murder, torture, drug trafficking, embezzlement, and tax evasion once he finally did return home after Britain rejected the extradition claim. He died at the age of 91 before he could be convicted. The slow transition of Chile from brutal dictatorship to marginal democracy had less to do with his own intentions than it did with his inability to maintain his regime due to his own infirmity and advancing age. Quite a legacy for a supposed champion of democracy.

Post WWII Japan was indeed a pro-western dictatorship, because that is what we set it up to be following their surrender in 1945. Japan had been a marginal parliamentary democracy before WWII and was slowly allowed to resume being a parliamentary democracy as the United States relinquished dictatorial control of post-war Japan.

Post WWII South Korea has seen several military coups and dictatorships emerged, and democratic reforms have occurred only after the assassination of the former dictator, and the popular uprising and removal of the sense. It hardly makes sense to credit dictators with democratic reforms which were initiated against their will and with their opposition.

In both Iraq and Afghanistan, even though elections have been held, both have resulted in barely functioning national governments. Iraq has reached an impasse regarding the division of political control over the oil rich Kirkuk region, and the impasse may yet lead to a civil collapse. The government set up by the U.S. in Afghanistan has only marginal control over the nation, and Taliban and independent warlords exercise authority over much of the nations territory.

Oh no, I've pissed off Tocsin.

Will his majesty please forgive my rough handling of his delicate feelings?

You sound like a teenager... or very near to one.

These displays of adolescent immaturity at least give me an idea what to expect from you, thanks.





Tocsin added to this post, 5 minutes and 57 seconds later...

...if a soldier is willing to sacrifce his freedom so I may go work all snug and sound, then that should be the way the military should run.

It sounds like you're confusing freedom for comfort, in which case your chosen slogan should be "Give me convenience or give me death."

[schwartzie]

What an eye opener this thread has been. Though most of the responses have been reasonably perceptive,

"When people talk about "the national interests," that's just propaganda. It means the interests of the rich and powerful..."
--Noam Chomsky YouTube - Our Own Private Bin Laden - 6/6 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Boy, do you have a lot to learn...

This is a meaty post. Thanks. It is refreshing to see a fact-rich, well documented comment. The link to the Noam Chomsky section of the documentary reminded me of this-- a good post 9-11 interview of him:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Tocsin]

The link to the Noam Chomsky section of the documentary reminded me of this-- a good post 9-11 interview of him:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Thanks for the link.

Noam Chomsky manages to accomplish what offends a lot of people; he articulately demonstrates the hypocrisy and double standards that the backers of American Imperialism use to justify their own actions while demonizing their adversaries, even though there is little substantive difference in the results of either.

[Dreamer]

Re-read my statement.I didn't credit no dictator or dictatorship with installing a democracy. I said these dictatorships couldn't have flourished as democracies without US help. Pro-US right-wing regimes tend to allow significantly more freedom(thus allowing the opposition more leeway) than their left-wing counterparts and eventually revert back to democracy after some years of stability.

There are other ways to promote democracy other than militarly destroying its institutions and then engaging in nation building.This can be done through military training programs,greater exchanges between the US and the target nation, greater flow of goods,etc.

Taiwan and South Korea would would have ended as Soviet satellites without US intervention, I think it is useless to demonstrate that democracy would have been unattainable had Kim Il Sung or Mao been able to establish control over these nations.

As for Chile,what do you think would have happened had Pinochet not intervened?

Allende had violated Chile's constitution several times and was very much at odd with other branches of government.Both the left and the right were forming paramilitary groups and inflation was in counted in triple digits. In any case, Chile's democracy is not "marginal", it has done exceedingly well compared to its Pinochet-free neighbours.

It is not advisable to push the boundaries of stability when the faction most likely to win is a fascist or communistic one. What's the point in having an unstable democracy which is going to be toppled tomorrow by a greater evil? Looks more like shortsighted ideological bigotry than a practical vision.

As for Iraq & Afghanistan, it is shortsighted to pronounce a judgement on them being failures. NATO is capable of staying indefinetly in these countries if it is given the political backing to do so. Afghanistan have had a long history of weak central government and the rule of the Americans in Iraq is a trifle compared to the brutality of Saddam Hussein. No insurgency was beaten in less than a decade, give it time.


You sound like a teenager... or very near to one.These displays of adolescent immaturity at least give me an idea what to expect from you, thanks.

You,my friend, suffer from an inferiority complex.

I taught that you throwing a tantrum about me "stomp that boot in the face of some third world child " was not very worthy of a lengthy answer. I also taught that I could have replied to your showing of victims of collateral damage by an equally violent image about Saddam's victims but then that would have wasted my time, wasted yours, and the same effect would have been achieved. War is violent,no shit Sherlock. It is no secret except to the most dimwitted of individuals that highly emotional pictures of equal violence can be found on all sides to support all causes.

What did you expect with this kind of dialogue? I'm not sure why would anyone sane want to waste time having a conversation with you dealing with more than witty one-liners in response to your emotional tantrums.





[i]Dreamer added to this post, 24 minutes and 54 seconds later...

Thanks for the link.

Noam Chomsky manages to accomplish what offends a lot of people; he articulately demonstrates the hypocrisy and double standards that the backers of American Imperialism use to justify their own actions while demonizing their adversaries, even though there is little substantive difference in the results of either.

Wow,let's see, a couple of flourishing democracies on one hand.

and for the other...?

[Karamazov]

Yeah, yeah. You can try to redefine the situation all you want.

Can you come up with a flaw in my reasoning? If not, then the phrase "the US military defends freedom" is accurate. It might not be all-encompassing or specific enough for you, but it is accurate.

As for specific events; does leading the nation in integrating blacks count? Also, the US military conducts a lot of operations "other than" war, like humanitarian aid. You know, when we're not busy killing babies.

However, at the end of the day the military is commanded by the civilian politicians. We can give them all sorts of good advice and then still have to follow their idiotic orders. And that is how it should be. A military that isn't subservient to civilian control is a coup waiting to happen.

I don't think that is really what he is referring to. This is within the context of the military being deployed and carrying out operations under the guise of "Defending Freedom" or being "Freedom Fighters". Ultimately, the military follows civilian leadership, you are correct, but I think he is objecting the notion that an offensive U.S. military is not defending any freedoms, rather than a defensive one.

A soldier standing guard in front of a gate is defending it's citizens, whereas going off and conquering a third world nation in order to install a transcontinental pipeline, isn't.

[Tocsin]

A soldier standing guard in front of a gate is defending it's citizens, whereas going of(f) and conquering a third world nation in order to install a transcontinental pipeline, isn't.

Bingo! Give that man a see-gar. :thumbsup:

[blueback]

A soldier standing guard in front of a gate is defending it's citizens, whereas going off and conquering a third world nation in order to install a transcontinental pipeline, isn't.
Lets pretend, for the sake of discussion, that each of these activities is carried out by one soldier.

If a soldier can stand guard in front. . .something. Probably a base, but lets assume it is a port so that he can be protecting civilians. He might get the chance to stop some drugs, maybe free some human slaves in a cargo container, etc.

The soldier who walks into a country, stabilizes it, and allows global trade to reestablish the free flow of resources out and money in. . .has done more for the citizens of his country than the one standing guard.

There is an axiom that is well understood by those who study history, are in the military, or just play strategy games. It is that the best defense is a good offense.

If you sit still behind your guards and your walls you will be safe for a while with very little effort. And because you are doing so little you can avoid any unfortunate side effects of the actions you are not taking. However, the world will continue to change around you. Because you are not interacting with it you will eventually be marginalized, and then swept away.

The US government actively seeks out situations in which it can advance its own agenda. The military is one arm of political policy, along with diplomacy, economics, and information. Sometimes things need to go our way and the only way to ensure that is to apply a little coersive pressure. By reaching out and tweeking the rest of the world we ensure that the environment leans in our favor. That provides more security and stability to our homeland than any amount of guards and walls.

It might feel nice to say that we shouldn't push/pull anyone else, but it won't feel nice when that someone else is push/pulling us because we let them get too powerful. It is called far-sightedness.

[Synamon]

The US government actively seeks out situations in which it can advance its own agenda. The military is one arm of political policy, along with diplomacy, economics, and information. Sometimes things need to go our way and the only way to ensure that is to apply a little coersive pressure. By reaching out and tweeking the rest of the world we ensure that the environment leans in our favor. That provides more security and stability to our homeland than any amount of guards and walls.



Sigh, you stole my thunder. *deleting most of my post* I agree that the military is a tool or weapon or asset of the U.S. government and therefore is used by the government to best serve its interests (economic, political, etc.) There is nothing wrong with doing that, the issue is whether the "powers that be" are truthful with U.S. citizens about the military's role.

As you pointed out, the military is used along with other tactics by the United States to advance its own agenda. It is naive and incomplete to say that the military's sole purpose is to defend freedom. Unless you are saying that the only agenda of the U.S. is freedom?

[Karamazov]

There is an axiom that is well understood by those who study history, are in the military, or just play strategy games. It is that the best defense is a good offense.

Naturally, but to what extent? For example; The British military during the Boer Wars took coercive actions against the Dutch settlers in Africa (Boers) to destabilize their republics of Transvaal and the Orange Free State, so they may be under colonial influence (especially after the discovery of gold in the region)

A war against a bunch of silly Dutch farmers became something messier. The British ultimately used scorched earth tactics and the internment of men,women and children in concentration camps to secure a victory. The losses significantly outnumbered the gains for the British, which thus contributed to it's diminution as a superpower. You can argue that it was simply an exercise of furthering colonial rule, but the U.S. is an implicit empire in it's activities and how foreign policy is often times at the behest of leading American companies. This isn't bad per se, but it leads to problems.

The same goes for Waterloo, The Somme, Amiens, etc. It's a fine line to tread between isolation and interventionism, without ultimately shooting ourselves in the foot if we go too far.

[schwartzie]

The soldier ... allows global trade to reestablish the free flow of resources out and money in.... The US ... military is one arm of political policy...

Sometimes things need to go our way.... By reaching out and tweeking the rest of the world we ensure that the environment leans in our favor.

*wondering what is this "our" blue speaks of*

We "citizens" don't really need oil that bad, man.... or, for that matter, any other people's resources and labor so badly that we need to invade and occupy their country and torture them. The United States military is being used as a tool to advance financial interests, but those interests are private, not public. Mere citizens are not getting rich from global trade in iraqi oil.

Our grandchildren will wonder why we sat by and watched what once was a fine country, the US, be sold so cheaply. And why we let those same private interests saddle future generations with paying for the iraq fiasco.

[blueback]

Naturally, but to what extent...The losses significantly outnumbered the gains for the British

Well, not to that extent.

foreign policy is often times at the behest of leading American companies.

I think it's more mixed up than the word "often" implies.

Let me see if I can express this clearly. . .

Yes, I'm sure that some political decisions are motivated only by a corporation(s) interest(s). However, that is not an inherently bad thing. What is right and wrong is only what self-preservation dictates. In the most limited sense that is for one person, in the most general sense it is for everyone on 'spaceship earth.' People's self-preservation is aided by profitable activities. They are the only thing that allow us to outrun entropy and survive chance. Governments are not motivated by profit, at least not at an organizational level, because they know that they will always have taxes coming in. Corporations, on the other hand, are motivated by profit. That is the only reason they exist. Since profitable activities are good, corporations are generally good. A company cannot survive if it doesn't engage in value-added activities. The value might not go to you, but it goes to someone, somewhere. So the more profit-making activities going on the more value is added to the world.

Do you really want all decision to be made by the government, which doesn't care about profit, than by the corporations that do?

This isn't bad per se, but it leads to problems.

All actions lead to problems. That butterfly that flapped its wings and started a hurricane didn't think there was anything wrong with flapping its wings.

There is no such thing as a side-effect. Effects are a package deal.

We "citizens" don't really need oil that bad, man....

Yeah, man, we do need that oil. Well, we need oil, any will do.

or, for that matter, any other people's resources and labor so badly that we need to invade and occupy their country and torture them.

Okay. You'r right. We should stop using oil. We should also stop eating and drinking because those nice people in Ethiopia really need our food and water. <-sarcasm

I assume that you don't advocate we starve to death so that we can give our sutinance to those who 'need' it. However, you might as well. When you say that we "don't need" other people's things you are one step away from saying that they have a more legitimate claim over those things than we do. When you say that, you might as well say that they need our stuff too. This is not a slippery slope arguement, as I'll explain.

Nature is a bitch. She doesn't care about suffering, only about success. Until we invent a way to stop entropy we will be in competition for natural resources (as if there was another kind) with everyone else. The only reason humans are at the top of the food chain is that they out-competed all other animals for the spot. But those animals are always ready to depose us at the first opportunity. There is no objective way to divide up natural resources into the ones that rightfully belong to me and the ones that rightfully belong to you. The only objective way to deal with them is the same way nature does, if you have them, they're yours. If you can take them, then they are yours. So, objectively, we have just as much of a claim on "their" natural resources as they do. The only other option is that one of us deserves all the natural resources and the other one doesn't. It is not possible for a person to have a partial claim on resources, only all or nothing.

Now that that is out of the way; I am not saying that we should do bad things to get natural resources. I am just saying that the "getting" of the resources is not bad. Torture is bad.

The United States military is being used as a tool to advance financial interests, but those interests are private, not public. Mere citizens are not getting rich from global trade in iraqi oil.

Oh yeah, I forgot how low the average American's standard of living was compared to the rest of the world. <-sarcasm

Our grandchildren will wonder why we sat by and watched what once was a fine country, the US, be sold so cheaply.

You're right. China owns our country. Of course, it is pretty hard for them to walk away with it.

And why we let those same private interests saddle future generations with paying for the iraq fiasco.

Yeah, that was a bad idea. Not so much in principle as in execution. I'm sure that we could have carried out a very 'proper' invasion and occupation, but we didn't.

[schwartzie]

blue--energy policy in the US is not very advanced. It is not keeping up with the science, but being held back by financial interests.
We are sending good men and women in harm's way, to capture oil from the country to which it belongs because of undue influence of those who profit from the harm. It's not all that complicated. Policy choices are being made in Washington that are simply bad and self-serving.

[Nomad]

Interesting discussion. Many credible, cogent arguments on every side.

The US military, the US government, et al, may not be defending your "freedom", but I'm willing to bet that the grunt on the ground is.

I have often thought back to an incident long ago in Germany, where I walked on a a patrol exercise through a German village not far from the east German border. In the US, we would never tolerate an "armed" foreign soldier in combat uniform walk a combat patrol through our towns. Even in an exercise. Nor would our thousands of veterans. Being an occupying force in the US would be a hideous nightmare.

Convince that grunt (or a citizen) of a threat to our freedom or sovereignty, foreign or domestic, and watch it fall. in bloody gobbets of flesh.

Just a thought.

-Nomad

[phantasma]

The US hasn't "defended freedom" since WWII. Since then, they have only been asserting "freedom" and their way of life. It isn't truly defending freedom unless the US could cease to exist if defeated. The US is so strong that "freedom" doesn't need to be defended. However, the US has seldom paid much attention to the constitution (an amazing idea if it were put into practice).

The expression "defending freedom" has become a cliche, and has lost much of its meaning. Now it's a cover for war's real motive: money.

[Tocsin]

The... government actively seeks out situations in which it can advance its own agenda. By reaching out and tweeking the rest of the world we ensure that the environment leans in our favor. That provides more security and stability to our homeland than any amount of guards and walls.

It might feel nice to say that we shouldn't push/pull anyone else, but it won't feel nice when that someone else is push/pulling us because we let them get too powerful. It is called far-sightedness.

It's sad but comical. "Tweeking the rest of the world" didn't work out so well in the end for the Third Reich... the Soviet Union... the British Empire... Napoleon... Rome...

But of course they made mistakes, but we won't. Our Empire and our influence will last forever.

Its called hubris, their empires had it as well, and it will bring our empire to an end just as certainly as it did theirs.

[Karamazov]

Yes, I'm sure that some political decisions are motivated only by a corporation(s) interest(s). However, that is not an inherently bad thing. What is right and wrong is only what self-preservation dictates. In the most limited sense that is for one person, in the most general sense it is for everyone on 'spaceship earth.'

The problem with this being that it's often times at the expense of another population. People generally seen as obstacles will promptly be picked off, governments not friendly to business over thrown and that usually doesn't sit well with a country's people when they see the puppet's strings. That ends up being detrimental for any further business enterprises and for the security of civilians back in the States and abroad.

It's more or less the unwanted and the superfluous being kicked off of Spaceship America


Do you really want all decision to be made by the government, which doesn't care about profit, than by the corporations that do?

Governmental and corporate decisions aren't mutually exclusive. Both want to maximize their gains to it's most optimal level. That's axiomatic for both. There should be a delicate balance between oppressive regulations and vicious capitalism, since both lead to undesirable outcomes.


There is no such thing as a side-effect. Effects are a package deal.

Not If the Cons outweigh the Pros.

[schwartzie]

... the US government, et al, may not be defending your "freedom", but I'm willing to bet that the grunt on the ground is.

... Convince that grunt (or a citizen) of a threat to our freedom or sovereignty, foreign or domestic, and watch it fall. in bloody gobbets of flesh.
Just a thought.
-Nomad

Agreed. That is what makes this situation, to me, seem so messed up. They are squandering a culture and set of values that people died for. Americans have always seen themselves as the good guys; on the correct side of conflicts. Many US citizens don't anymore, and certainly the rest of the world doesn't.

I felt personally betrayed when we learned that Colin Powell--who I saw as a good guy-- either lied to us, or allowed himself to be used. I'm personally glad that Clinton got her due -- she is the first among, hopefully, many, who will pay for supporting the invasion of iraq.

I am appalled that jillions of dollars are being thrown to "contractors" like Blackwater, who are just mercenaries, while vets are treated so sparingly. Why does a leader of US forces in iraq bring his own hired mercenaries to guard him in-country? How messed up is that?

[blueback]

It's sad but comical.

You must be the saddest giggling person in the world. You think everything is sad and comical.

"Tweeking the rest of the world" didn't work out so well in the end for the Third Reich... the Soviet Union... the British Empire... Napoleon... Rome...

Well, I guess this discussion is about to end. You just compared the US to both communism and Nazism. I don't think comparing anything the US has ever done to the holocaust is fair.

But of course they made mistakes, but we won't. Our Empire and our influence will last forever.

I don't remember ever saying that the US would last forever. You made that idea up all on your own. I just said that actively controlling the rest of the world works in our favor. At least, as opposed to hiding from the rest of the world.

Its called hubris, their empires had it as well, and it will bring our empire to an end just as certainly as it did theirs.

Ooooh. . .tell me more blindly obvious stuff. It's so exciting.

The problem with this being that it's often times at the expense of another population.

Yeah. Let me know when you find a place with infinite resources.

It's more or less the unwanted and the superfluous being kicked off of Spaceship America

Would you have it the other way? Would you rather the wanted and vitally necessary were kicked off?

There should be a delicate balance between oppressive regulations and vicious capitalism, since both lead to undesirable outcomes.

Yes. . .we should definitely find the appropriate balance between being too oppressive and being too vicious.

Kidding. I know what you mean.

Not If the Cons outweigh the Pros.

Duh.

Americans have always seen themselves as the good guys; on the correct side of conflicts.

So has just about every other successful group in history.

I felt personally betrayed when we learned that Colin Powell--who I saw as a good guy-- either lied to us, or allowed himself to be used.

I'm sure he had a good reason; he's a smart guy. I don't think you should put too much faith in any one person. You never really know other people.

The research into how well people can predict what other people are thinking has shown that strangers guess less than 10% correctly and even people who have been together for decades guess slightly better than 50%.

Take the fact that people never really know what other people are thinking, and the fact that people respond primarily to their environment, which is hard for anyone else to understand, and you have a lot of misunderstanding. You should go into it expecting the unexpected.

Or, as the great Michael Tyson once said: Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.

I'm personally glad that Clinton got her due -- she is the first among, hopefully, many, who will pay for supporting the invasion of iraq.

Maybe ants and honey should be involved. You want her to suffer, after all.

Why does a leader of US forces in iraq bring his own hired mercenaries to guard him in-country? How messed up is that?

Because the Blackwater guys don't have any rules of engagement. You're a lot safer when you're escorted by a group of guys who can shoot anything which comes within 50 feet just because they feel like it. The US soldiers aren't allowed to shoot until they're already being shot at. The Blackwater guys can't be prosecuted by the Iraqies, or by the military, only by the State Department. Of course, they are the bodyguards for the state department, so the state department is unwilling to make them unhappy. That means if anything bad happens they are just "fired" and shipped out of the country. A soldier would have a courtmarshal; too public.

It makes a certain amount of sense. I'd want Blackwater guys protecting me if I was in Iraq. When it comes down to it I consider my life more important than some random stranger's. I'd prefer that the Blackwater guys try to avoid innocent casulaties. However, they are in a situation in which the bad guys look exactly like the good guys.

It's moral cunundrums like that which make me want to avoid situations like that. However, I have a hard time condemning anyone for saving their own life. Better to be alive and wondering if you use too much force than dead.

[Karamazov]

Yeah. Let me know when you find a place with infinite resources.

Hey, as long as you don't fault someone else from trying to take your resources, than I'm alright with that.

[acyckowski]

blue--energy policy in the US is not very advanced. It is not keeping up with the science, but being held back by financial interests.
We are sending good men and women in harm's way, to capture oil from the country to which it belongs because of undue influence of those who profit from the harm. It's not all that complicated. Policy choices are being made in Washington that are simply bad and self-serving.

Let me raise the BS flag here. So, I'm to understand that the US is in the middle of the pack re: fossil fuels...and the rest of the world is way out ahead? Like, who? Luxemborg?

Show me the math. How many windmills does it take to generate the energy from one coal-burning reactor? How many horsepower can a hydrogen-powered motor produce compared to an internal combustion engine, per dollar spent on hydrogen/petroleum? While we're at it, what's the impact on global climate by transferring a significant percentage of the world's wind energy into electricity? Oh, that's right, it hasn't been studied....

Your argument is what...that the industrial machine wants to pay more in raw materials to meet energy demands? How does this ensure greater profits? Last I checked, oil was over $130 a barrel, but wind and sun were still free...sure, sure, it's all a conspiracy between Texas oilmen and Saudi princes, plain old supply-and-demand have nothing to do with it.

The only superior technology available to fossil fuels now is nuclear power, and big kudos go to the environmentalists for their support of this clean--oh, wait. Never mind, illegal to build a nuke plant. Thanks, greenies!

Does it not register with you, even as a remote possibility, that there are bad people in the world who wish to do us harm? Given that, does it make more sense to wring our hands comparing our energy policy to some academic White Paper, or to send troops to where the bad guys are and kill them?

[zibber]

Kind of a one-liner, but the thread is full of extended ad hominem one-liners.

That is why your bumper sticker rhetoric (war = $$$) is worthless. It is a cynical, surface level impression that is purely emotional. There is no understanding behind it.

I appreciate the irony.

[blueback]

Hey, as long as you don't fault someone else from trying to take your resources, than I'm alright with that.

Nope. As I said, we all have an equal objective claim on all natural resources. Why do you think I advocate a strong military?

Nature rewards success. I want to survive and prosper, because that is success, and I want the reward. . .which is another chance to succeed. Since it is important to me, I respect anyone else who is good at it. To not do so would be like an olympic swimmer who didn't respect people who were good at swimming.

The only way to be consistent is to recognize that a person is not inherently wrong for trying to take "your" resources and that you are not inherently wrong for tyring to take "theirs." You just happened to land somewhere; you can't claim what was under you as a divine gift for you alone. It's like chess. Just because you start out sitting on a few squares doesn't mean those squares are yours. The other side as just as much of a right to occupy them. It's up to you to stop them, if you so desire, but you can't appeal to anything more than your own abilities and your own desire to live.

In a limited-resource environment everything is ultimately zero-sum.

[Tocsin]

Could anyone here agree with the following sentiments?

America is not a warlike nation. It is a soldierly one, which means it does not want a war, but does not fear it. It loves peace but also loves its honor and freedom.

Never forget that the most sacred right on this earth is mans right to have the earth to till with his own hands, the most sacred sacrifice the blood that a man sheds for this earth.

Strength is the source of life. That strength the Almighty has given us to use. Always before God and the world, the stronger has the right to carry through what he wills. It is not by the principles of humanity that man lives or is able to preserve himself above the animal world, but solely by means of the most brutal struggle. Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live. If you do not fight, life will never be won. What we have to fight for is the freedom and independence of the nation, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the creator. Man has become great through struggle. Let us never hesitate or play the coward.

[blueback]

Eh. It's got some points I agree with but it mixed them up with random religious sentiments. It's also a bit more rhetorical than I like.

[Synamon]

Could anyone here agree with the following sentiments?

That second quote about property rights is actually this: Never forget that the most sacred of all rights in this world is man's right to the earth which he wishes to cultivate for himself and that the holiest of all sacrifices is that of the blood poured out for it.

Did you quote Mein Kampf as an example of propaganda which parallels that being espoused in the U.S. regarding fighting for freedom? Or were you interested in whether people actually agree with the view point?

[maabus1999]

Defending our freedom is a cliche that most likely will not happen in reality for several decades/centuries.

The military has one purpose, and that is to defend against threats to National Security. The problem I see is a few NT's here are not seeing the big picture in the definition of National Security. While it changes executive to executive, it basically is anything they decide will hurt our country in ANY form. What you are welcome is to debate those decisions and its reasoning, but those are the basis for every military action taken in the past 50 years, and for the most part, all have very strong cases for them, though the public will not see most of them for 20 years (freedom of information act vs classified).

On a side note, Iraq was a huge screw up of reasoning. I'm just glad after 4 years they finally figuring out some resemblance of an idea of how to get out.

[Lights]

Defending our freedom is a cliche that most likely will not happen in reality for several decades/centuries.

The military has one purpose, and that is to defend against threats to National Security. The problem I see is a few NT's here are not seeing the big picture in the definition of National Security. While it changes executive to executive, it basically is anything they decide will hurt our country in ANY form. What you are welcome is to debate those decisions and its reasoning, but those are the basis for every military action taken in the past 50 years, and for the most part, all have very strong cases for them, though the public will not see most of them for 20 years (freedom of information act vs classified).

On a side note, Iraq was a huge screw up of reasoning. I'm just glad after 4 years they finally figuring out some resemblance of an idea of how to get out.

National security is a myth. Politicians have been using that line since the cold war to justify military action wherever there has been substantial corporate interests. The military exists as a means to subsidize the economy through defense contracts, and as a means of securing vital resources from foreign entities. The plea of "national security" is nothing but a media ploy to keep the public from questioning the government's military actions which actually serve to steal from the rest of the world.

[Karamazov]

The only way to be consistent is to recognize that a person is not inherently wrong for trying to take "your" resources and that you are not inherently wrong for tyring to take "theirs." You just happened to land somewhere; you can't claim what was under you as a divine gift for you alone. It's like chess. Just because you start out sitting on a few squares doesn't mean those squares are yours. The other side as just as much of a right to occupy them. It's up to you to stop them, if you so desire, but you can't appeal to anything more than your own abilities and your own desire to live.

It's still grating that people still hold on to such romantic and lofty notions of fighting the good fight, defending freedom and a myriad of other slogans used to stroke the collective ego. Naturally, most people don't want to imagine their government extrapolating resources at the expense of others, so they continue to chase ghosts of by-gone national emblems for their daily reaffirmation of being on the side of angels.

Of course, the Government wouldn't get away with nearly half as much If most of the populous didn't subscribe to this. Not everyone is as honest about it as you are unfortunately.

[maabus1999]

National security is a myth. Politicians have been using that line since the cold war to justify military action wherever there has been substantial corporate interests. The military exists as a means to subsidize the economy through defense contracts, and as a means of securing vital resources from foreign entities. The plea of "national security" is nothing but a media ploy to keep the public from questioning the government's military actions which actually serve to steal from the rest of the world.

Let me rephrase with you wrote. That IS national security. Keeping our economy going is the bottom line. Keeping the economy going keeps the country stable and people happy, which is the ultimate purpose of the government to the masses, besides maintaining the social quo (corporations). And it is every economy of every country that looks towards themselves first versus other countries. Look at the policies of the BRAC countries. I think what the true navity of the media is that we keep a strong military for the fact we can be the biggest cock on the block. How else do you think countries let us keep a huge national debt? It is more then just us consuming everything and helping them grow. If it wasn't for Iraq weakening us so much, we wouldn't have so many countries saying no at times. Look how many said "yes" when we went in...

The world is still based on draconian actions, as much as I don't like it nor anyone else. But reality is reality.

EDIT: It would be nice if congress wasn't beyond the coefficiency of inefficiency (20 people) and things could get done effectively. If the government could be run with true efficiency and no corruption, while maintain "national security", you would find an exceptionally happy and powerful country. Just need some INTJ's!

[Dave C C]

The US military fights due to poor diplomacy.

[Bandit]

The slogan itself lost all relevance after WWII.(WWI?)

I won't repeat what's been posted but the military has never been used to deflect any external threat since WWII. All operations thus far have been preemptive without just cause or simply monetary in nature (resources, contracting, etc.)

Having the largest military force is simply a deterrent.

Cuban Missle Crisis?

[Lights]

Cuban Missle Crisis?

A blockade?

Not exactly a strong argument against the whole, "having the largest military force is simply a deterrent" argument.

[blueback]

Well our military is so large, and such a good deterrent, that it rarely gets a chance to demonstrate what it is capable of.

That's okay with me. I am of the opinion that it is better to have something and not need it than to need it and not have it. Sometimes having it is all that is necessary to ensure that you don't need it, but not having it is all that is necessary to ensure that you do need it.

Say that three times fast.

[meanlittlechimp]

In the case of WWII, the U.S. was involved in a defensive war, after being attacked by Japan, and subsequently having war declared against it by Germany and Italy.

From that time on, the application of U.S. military force has not generally been defensive in nature.
This is exactly why the USG changed the name of Dept of WAR, to the Dept of DEFENSE. You could see why it would be a bad PR move when overthrowing governments we don't approve or carpet bombing villagers.

You can only use the word WAR when it's justified.

The US military is already stretched pretty thin, I do not think that lowering the military budget is the way to go.
Because we should keep attacking countries that can't harm us, while running up our national debt that merely the interest on is outstripping our expenditures. I love foreign policies hawks who are conservative in every way, except for fiscally.

Tocsin, you seem to complain a lot but you do not offer much of an alternative solution. (I suspect because you know that an alternative course of action would have resulted in a pro-soviet foreign policy, or dictatorship).
You can't make foreign policy without breaking a few eggs. Most of the victims of US backed coups were either communists or communist sympathizers.

You're completely wrong. I can name dozens of democracies we've overthrown and replaced with right wing dictatorships. How many dictatorships can you name where we installed democracies. The facts don't bear itself out; if you don't get your history and news from Fox.

Just because a nation decides to enact socialist/communist policies, it does not make them evil, or a threat to the United States. The socialist rhetoric was the PR tactic before "terrorism", it only works on simplistic Americans who get their history out of a cracker jack box. We have killed far more people, via Foreign policy, than any other nation on earth since WWII.

These millions dead in SE Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America caused by the US were NOT too spread democracy, capitalism or to defend America's safety. It was simply to dominate access to cheap raw materials through puppet governments, rigged elections or if all else fails - outright invasion or bombing.

[Karamazov]

You're completely wrong. I can name dozens of democracies we've overthrown and replaced with right wing dictatorships. How many dictatorships can you name where we installed democracies. The facts don't bear itself out; if you don't get your history and news from Fox.

Let's not try this again, I think we know what happens when you engage in a debate on foreign policy with certain people. (Like the Obama thread)

[acyckowski]

Just reread the Obama thread, his first post was "Go Fox!". That alone ruins all pretense of credibility.

As opposed to the objective and unbiased reporting of Serious Broadcast Newsmen, such as Dan Rather.

The US military fights due to poor diplomacy.

And so the other nations of the world maintain a military, and send them to war, because they have superior diplomacy? Wonder what Prince Harry thinks about the UK's diplomacy in Afghanistan?

These millions dead in SE Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America caused by the US were NOT too spread democracy, capitalism or to defend America's safety. It was simply to dominate access to cheap raw materials through puppet governments, rigged elections or if all else fails - outright invasion or bombing.

Interesting. A few points:
- First, to demonstrate the callousness of the natural order (and my lack of concern for your delicate sensibilities): everybody dies, the only questions are when and how.
- Spreading democracy and capitalism DOES defend America's safety, in the general sense. As mentioned by several of the anti-war posters, economic interests weigh heavily in foreign policy: trading partners don't often go to war with each other, though there are several notable exceptions.
- Pragmatic foreign policy assumes that the greater interest of the nation is sometimes best served by choosing the lesser of two evils. If you categorically reject "the ends justify the means," you absolutely accept that the means excuse the ends.
- Oil prices have gone through the roof in the past few years...I guess that has more to do with U.S. profiteering than an exponential increase in global demand, OPEC's business decisions, or environmental policies which restrict alternative supply?
- On a similar note, if you wished to imply that our presence in Afghanistan has anything to do with its cheap natural resources....gosh, you're clueless. They have resources, sure...no rail system, paved roads, or ports required for exporting them, but they've got some really pretty gemstones.
- Rigged elections...oh, jeez, here we go again. As opposed to the open and free elections that kept the Communists in power in Russia, Cuba, and El Salvador....bet you're still angry about the 2000 U.S. elections, too, where the evil Bush campaign went so far as to go back into the past and modify the Constitution to ensure that the electoral college system would matter more than a simple majority, thus "stealing" the election...if only Gore had gotten a fourth recount, he would've won that one for sure.


National security is a myth. Politicians have been using that line since the cold war to justify military action wherever there has been substantial corporate interests. The military exists as a means to subsidize the economy through defense contracts, and as a means of securing vital resources from foreign entities. The plea of "national security" is nothing but a media ploy to keep the public from questioning the government's military actions which actually serve to steal from the rest of the world.

So, military action has no historic predecessor before the 1950's, and has only been used by countries with sufficient legal integrity to make and enforce contracts?

But yes, I see your point, the media has been soooo supportive of U.S. military action in Vietnam and Iraq. Seems to me that Desert Storm wasn't going to work, either...tens of thousands of casualties, if I remember correctly. Anyhow, your overall point is valid, the profits we reaped from stealing resources from Somalia are immeasurable.


Now, a thought question for all the folks who argue that the U.S. hasn't used the military for defense "since" WWII. Care to name the military actions BEFORE 1940 that were strictly defensive in nature? I'll give you a hint: War of 1812 and the Mexican-American war. Everything else was U.S. "aggression."


The ad hominem attacks will end when people stop saying retarded things and claiming them as brilliant.

[Karamazov]

- First, to demonstrate the callousness of the natural order (and my lack of concern for your delicate sensibilities): everybody dies, the only questions are when and how.
- Spreading democracy and capitalism DOES defend America's safety, in the general sense. As mentioned by several of the anti-war posters, economic interests weigh heavily in foreign policy: trading partners don't often go to war with each other, though there are several notable exceptions.
- Pragmatic foreign policy assumes that the greater interest of the nation is sometimes best served by choosing the lesser of two evils. If you categorically reject "the ends justify the means," you absolutely accept that the means excuse the ends.
- Oil prices have gone through the roof in the past few years...I guess that has more to do with U.S. profiteering than an exponential increase in global demand, OPEC's business decisions, or environmental policies which restrict alternative supply?

1. Not only when and how but when and how someone decides to do it for you. As long as you won't fault someone else for killing you for their own personal gain, then you're consistent. Doesn't matter either way.
2. No, not always. Americanizing the world over is proving to be far more counter productive. Shortly after WWII, we shifted from being the world's exporter to being one of the largest importers, which has resulted in massive federal trade debt to China and other countries. U.S. imports of crude oil are still escalating (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), all of this waiting for that tipping point to finally detonate the bomb. Of course, not factoring this in with U.S. support for dictatorships that happen to control the Oil pipelines, effectively tying the hands of anyone willing to confront these nations of actually supporting, funding and harboring terrorists. After all, why stop a good thing?
3. What people (like yourself) apparently don't get is that attempting to rigidly subscribe to such scorched earth tactics in foreign policy, is that it is actually harmful in the long run. You only provide a pretext of credibility to every yahoo thinking you are the an evil empire. That will be bad for business and for the country but in the end, entropy takes over.
4. Actually, Oil prices by the barrel are now steadily declining and I believe he's alluding to the fact that an intention was to set up shop in the Middle East, where specifically in that region, Oil is to be found. So, logically a factor in the decision for the invasion would concern Oil.

But yes, I see your point, the media has been soooo supportive of U.S. military action in Vietnam and Iraq. Seems to me that Desert Storm wasn't going to work, either...tens of thousands of casualties, if I remember correctly. Anyhow, your overall point is valid, the profits we reaped from stealing resources from Somalia are immeasurable.

Actually, there was about as much media exposure in Vietnam, as there was in WWII (to lesser extent). See...the latter is an example of just war, the former..not so much. The information was presented, the supposed reasoning uncovered in all it's fallacious glory and basically people didn't like that very much. Same with Iraq, only people could care less (since nobody is being drafted). Desert Storm was pretty much the "video game war"; a war that can basically be summed in this:

"Hmm...I'll try the blue button today....man that exploded real good! I bet...it'll be hella more awesome If I record it, so everybody can see how great we are..not like that other time...but we woulda won!...yeah.."

Now, a thought question for all the folks who argue that the U.S. hasn't used the military for defense "since" WWII. Care to name the military actions BEFORE 1940 that were strictly defensive in nature? I'll give you a hint: War of 1812 and the Mexican-American war. Everything else was U.S. "aggression."
Yeah..about that.

Funny how "since WWII" made you think to before WWII. Since, after all, we are talking after WWII and there has never been another "defensive" war since then. Plus, America declared war on Britain and Mexico didn't like it's land being taken away.

Those were the good ol' days though, when Indians could be slaughtered and someone's liberal, touchy feely sensibilities wouldn't get hurt for taking their resources....I miss those days. <----you know...sarcasm

No ones really made any ad hominem without something of substance to back it up (ok...one or two) so....your turn.

[Tocsin]

Did you quote Mein Kampf as an example of propaganda which parallels that being espoused in the U.S. regarding fighting for freedom? Or were you interested in whether people actually agree with the view point?

Sorry for the delay in answering your question. I was busy considering and responding to the important political implications of flatulence raised on another thread.

I posted a cut and paste collection of Hitler quotations from a military website because I could see some disturbing similarities between the ideals that Hitler embraced and those expressed by several posters on this thread, and I wanted to see how many people would agree with such sentiments.

Sadly, you managed to identify the source before more than one fish took the bait.

There have been numerous suggestions on this thread, before and after I posted the Hitler quotes, that embrace aspects of "social darwinism" that would make an authoritarian dictator like Hitler proud.

For example:

...actively controlling the rest of the world works in our favor... When it comes down to it I consider my life more important than some random stranger's.

...we all have an equal objective claim on all natural resources. Why do you think I advocate a strong military? Nature rewards success. I want to survive and prosper, because that is success, and I want the reward...

The only way to be consistent is to recognize that a person is not inherently wrong for trying to take "your" resources and that you are not inherently wrong for trying to take "theirs." You just happened to land somewhere; you can't claim what was under you as a divine gift for you alone. It's like chess. Just because you start out sitting on a few squares doesn't mean those squares are yours. The other side as just as much of a right to occupy them. It's up to you to stop them, if you so desire, but you can't appeal to anything more than your own abilities and your own desire to live.

Keeping our economy going is the bottom line...

The world is still based on draconian actions, as much as I don't like it nor anyone else. But reality is reality.

The disturbing thing I find in this advocacy/acceptance of personal/national gain through the application of military force, especially among a personality group that supposedly has an affinity for reason and intelligence, is that it is the complete contradiction of reason.

Human cultures are certainly going to continue having clashes over assumptions of property rights and sovereignty - and there are basically two ways these conflicts can be resolved. One is through force; the stronger of the two adversaries either kills or subjugates the weaker of the two, a prospect which means the use of violence, and death and destruction being the chief results. The other means of resolving disputes is the use of reason. The two adversaries can agree to rationally state their claims, and reasonably consider each others points of view. They can even agree to neutral third party mediations if they can't come to a mutual understanding on their own. This process may result in neither party getting 100% of what they want, but it also means that one party won't be 100% destroyed or subjugated. It is also the process which is more likely to lead to a just settlement of the dispute.

The notion of compromise, justice, and reason certainly has no appeal for the strong and stupid. As far as they are concerned, it is strength alone which determines who is right and who is wrong; "survival of the fittest...to the victor goes the spoils" and so on.

The narrow-minded arrogance of the "victory through strength" mindset is that it overlooks that the strong of one age become the enfeebled of the next, and it blindly ignores the obvious truth that having the ability to apply force has nothing to do with the ability to apply reason - or justice.

It has been said throughout the ages that "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword," and those who embrace the notion of military dominance frequently close their eyes to this and pretend it will never apply to them.

Perhaps the greatest failure of those who embrace notions of competitive dominance is their inability to see what kind of world such brutal competitiveness would lead to.

The notion of what an emphasis on strength, competition, and dominance as a social ideal would lead to was not lost on George Orwell:

'How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?'

Winston thought. 'By making him suffer,' he said.

'Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating? It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery is torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself. Progress in our world will be progress towards more pain. The old civilizations claimed that they were founded on love or justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. Everything else we shall destroy everything... There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy...always -- do not forget this, Winston -- always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face -- for ever.'

People who favor the resolution of differences though strength and self-interests rather than impartial reason are working to make that vision a reality.

[Henry]

- First, to demonstrate the callousness of the natural order (and my lack of concern for your delicate sensibilities): everybody dies, the only questions are when and how.

Your point:

The state of nature is that life is cruel, self-serving, and short. Therefore we should cultivate these thigns in our foreign policy.

Fail.


- Spreading democracy and capitalism DOES defend America's safety, in the general sense. As mentioned by several of the anti-war posters, economic interests weigh heavily in foreign policy: trading partners don't often go to war with each other, though there are several notable exceptions.

Re spreading democracy:
1. It is not my job to "right" every "wrong" in the world.
2. There are plenty of important times when trading partners went to war w/ one another, and US trade policy has largely wrecked domestic manufacturing while stimulating CHinese growth. And China is not a whit more democrat for almost three decades of 10-12% annual growth, and is the only real long-term strategic threat to the current geopolitical system.

- On a similar note, if you wished to imply that our presence in Afghanistan has anything to do with its cheap natural resources....gosh, you're clueless. They have resources, sure...no rail system, paved roads, or ports required for exporting them, but they've got some really pretty gemstones.

Afghanistan was about security and revenge. Few seriously question the conflict, and never with the same concern as in Iraq.

We had no cassus belli, and its been horribly mismanaged/ Any wonder the world is unhappy with our actions in Iraq?

[blueback]

I posted a cut and paste collection of Hitler quotations from a military website because I could see some disturbing similarities between the ideals that Hitler embraced and those expressed by several posters on this thread, and I wanted to see how many people would agree with such sentiments.

Yeah. . .I suppose I should be pretty good at identifying Hitler speeches by now considering the number of times people have snuck them in. Oh, wait, I evaluate ideas on their own merits, not because of who expressed them. Silly me.

There have been numerous suggestions on this thread, before and after I posted the Hitler quotes, that embrace aspects of "social darwinism" that would make an authoritarian dictator like Hitler proud.

Comparing other people to Hitler is the same as accusing them of wanting to kill millions of people for no other reason then they're there. Hitler's ideology was based on the idea that the Germanic people should prove their superiority through actual fighting. That is why they were aggressive and why they were a threat to the entire world.

I, on the other hand, think that fighting is simply another tactic. There is nothing inherently good or bad about it.

Oh, and you can accuse people of "social darwinism" but that doesn't make the term stick. "Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil" Ironically, I agree with Darwin.

The disturbing thing I find in this advocacy/acceptance of personal/national gain through the application of military force, especially among a personality group that supposedly has an affinity for reason and intelligence, is that it is the complete contradiction of reason.

You can't contradict a thing. What is the contradiction of a tree?
What you really mean, IMHO, is that it contradicts your set of values. You are simply skipping the step where you have to go out on a limb and explain why you think military force is inherently wrong, based on your own opinion, by associating your opinion with reason itself.

Military force is a tool; it is amoral. The people who use it can be moral or immoral. Was it moral for the US to use military force to aid the people of South Korea? Is it moral for the US to use military force to try and track down the terrorists responsible for 9/11? You can argue either way, but you will be arguing about the morality of the people involved, not the act itself.

there are basically two ways these conflicts can be resolved. One is through force; the stronger of the two adversaries either kills or subjugates the weaker of the two...[or]...The two adversaries can agree to rationally state their claims, and reasonably consider each others points of view.

You have only listed one option here. And that one option you have stated in a very confused way.

There is only one way that issues get resolved and that is force.

In your first example, you mistakenly assume that all force involves slavery and or killing. In reality, as opposed to your fantasy world, there is a continuum of force. The word "force" by itself is not specific enough to know what type of force is being discussed. You have also presented a false dichotomy by pretending that the only two things that can happen when people disagree are horrible, horrible destruction or wonderful, wonderful agreement. In reality, there is not telling what can happen; again, there is a range of possibilities.

In your second example, you assumed that if people agree to rationaly state their desires and talk about how to compromise that they will both agree to a compromise. That is incorrect. People sometimes find themselves in situation where no agreement is possible. In such a situation the conflict either remains unresolved, which really means that it wasn't that important anyway, or they have to resort to a contest of forces. However, lets assume that they do agree on a compromise. When that happens both parties have to force themselves to abide by it. Not getting everything you want, and abiding by that self-imposed limitation, requires an effort of will. Will is simply lower down in the hierarchy of force.

Everything done by a person requires force. Sometimes the force is directed at themselves, sometimes at someone else. Sometimes there isn't much force, sometimes there is a lot. You really should learn to look at the world the way it is. It's more complicated, sure, but you will be wrong less often.

It is also the process which is more likely to lead to a just settlement of the dispute.

Please explain to me where a truly neutral third party can be found.

Additionally, please explain where you are finding a universal standard of justice that is independent of the law established by a powerful party.

The notion of compromise, justice, and reason certainly has no appeal for the strong and stupid.

So we are only talking about the strong AND the stupid. Well, that's good to know.

As far as they are concerned, it is strength alone which determines who is right and who is wrong; "survival of the fittest...to the victor goes the spoils" and so on.

I delt with this somewhere else, but I'll do it again.
"might makes right" is not a way of defining morality. Morality is prescriptive, it tells you what you should do. If might makes right, than whatever happened must have been right, simply because it happened. However, this is descriptive, not prescriptive. Might makes right must wait to see what happens before declaring it right. This means that it is not a system of morality.

To the victor goes the spoils is simply a description of reality.

The narrow-minded arrogance of the "victory through strength" mindset is that it overlooks that the strong of one age become the enfeebled of the next, and it blindly ignores the obvious truth that having the ability to apply force has nothing to do with the ability to apply reason - or justice.

You are so confused.
Are you comparing "victory through strength" to "victory through weakness?" I have yet to see someone win by applying their weaknesses. Maybe you can provide me with an example.
Why would it matter that a group which is strong at one point will become weak at another point? That is just as obvious as the fact that a strong group was already weak in the past, before they became strong. Humans start out weak, get strong, and then grow weak and die. . .but that doesn't stop anyone from takig advantage of their strength while they have it.
So, you think that people should care about applying reason and justice. Okay, what if they don't want to? Are you going to force them to? What portion of the spectrum of force are you going to use?

It has been said throughout the ages that "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword," and those who embrace the notion of military dominance frequently close their eyes to this and pretend it will never apply to them.

I've seen you use this argument before, but I still don't understand it.
Why do you think this idea matters?

Perhaps the greatest failure of those who embrace notions of competitive dominance is their inability to see what kind of world such brutal competitiveness would lead to.

"competitive dominance". . .
So, is this in comparison to "lack-of-competitive dominance" or "competitive lack-of-dominance?"
Nature is brutal. Because the laws of reality dictate that a thing must be what it is, it cannot both be and not be at the same time, you either get something or you don't. This leads to competition over things. Because the things are sometimes really important to have, the competition is sometimes brutal. Are you saying that the laws of nature should change?

People who favor the resolution of differences though strength and self-interests rather than impartial reason are working to make that vision a reality.

Ah, so, you favor "impartial reason" as the arbiter of disputes.
Okay, where are you going to find impartial reason?

[blueback]

Desert Storm was pretty much the "video game war"; a war that can basically be summed in this:

"Hmm...I'll try the blue button today....man that exploded real good! I bet...it'll be hella more awesome If I record it, so everybody can see how great we are..not like that other time...but we woulda won!...yeah.."

I'm impressed. Normally I'm really hard to offend but you managed to do it.
I'm assuming that you haven't had much to do with the military, otherwise you wouldn't have described us as button pushers who delight in mindless destruction.

Those were the good ol' days though, when Indians could be slaughtered and someone's liberal, touchy feely sensibilities wouldn't get hurt for taking their resources....I miss those days. <----you know...sarcasm

There were plenty of people upset at the idea of killing bunches of indians.

The ironic thing is that the sort of people who got really upset about what we were doing to the indians were also the sort of people who don't get to have much power. It's amusing that certain philosophies tend to correlate with the power to act on them.

[Tocsin]

Yeah. . .I suppose I should be pretty good at identifying Hitler speeches by now considering the number of times people have snuck them in. Oh, wait, I evaluate ideas on their own merits, not because of who expressed them. Silly me.

Well... I guess that's the tacit admission that you think some of Hitler's ideas have merit.

I... think that fighting is simply another tactic. There is nothing inherently good or bad about it... Military force is a tool; it is amoral... There is only one way that issues get resolved and that is force. If might makes right, than whatever happened must have been right, simply because it happened. However, this is descriptive, not prescriptive. Might makes right must wait to see what happens before declaring it right. This means that it is not a system of morality. To the victor goes the spoils is simply a description of reality.

Thanks for the amusing support for my previous arguments.

Please explain to me where a truly neutral third party can be found.

Maybe those comfortable, prosperous, pacifist socialists in Norway?

Are you comparing "victory through strength" to "victory through weakness?"

Nope. Not at all. I'm comparing the resolution of conflict through competitive dominance to the resolution of conflict through rational compromise and impartial consideration... though you may consider reason, compromise, and impartiality signs of weakness.

So, you think that people should care about applying reason and justice. Okay, what if they don't want to? Are you going to force them to? What portion of the spectrum of force are you going to use?

The unfortunate reality is that people who take what they want by brute force will not listen to reason, and thus must be defeated by resorting to brute force as a defense, which is what the notion of "he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword" speaks to.

I've seen you use this argument before, but I still don't understand it.

I'm not surprised.

So, is this in comparison to "lack-of-competitive dominance" or "competitive lack-of-dominance?"
Nature is brutal. Because the laws of reality dictate that a thing must be what it is, it cannot both be and not be at the same time, you either get something or you don't. This leads to competition over things. Because the things are sometimes really important to have, the competition is sometimes brutal. Are you saying that the laws of nature should change?

I am saying that "man" (or at least, some men), unlike other animals, possesses a capacity of reason that gives humanity the option of resolving conflict through compromise and agreement, rather than simply attacking adversaries.

Ah, so, you favor "impartial reason" as the arbiter of disputes.
Okay, where are you going to find impartial reason?

Obviously not in any of your posts.

I'm assuming that you haven't had much to do with the military, otherwise you wouldn't have described us as button pushers who delight in mindless destruction.

That's right... you don't have to push buttons to engage in mindless destruction... it's not that technical; mindless destruction can be as simple as tossing puppies off of a cliff...

YouTube - Marine David Motari:Expelled over Puppy Video"IT WAS REAL!" (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

But what the hell... let's not try and moralize the natural, amoral application of the marine's superior force over a weak puppy... besides... I'm sure the puppy had it coming... and the marine was just doing his part "defending freedom."

[blueback]

Ah, you're fun because you like to argue. You like to argue so much that you do it even when you're wrong. You skipped most of my points and just attcked my character. Other people might not catch that, but I do, and it is kind of amusing.


Well... I guess that's the tacit admission that you think some of Hitler's ideas have merit.

Hitler was a successful leader. He couldn't have been successful if he wasn't on to something. You can say the exact same thing for any other leader in history. America thinks using the nuclear bombs was a pretty good idea; Japan probably doesn't agree. Who is right? The answer is it isn't that simple. We did exactly what the Japanese would have done in our position.

Thanks for the amusing support for my previous arguments.

Truth is truth. I have no problem agreeing with ideas that are correct. Apparently, you do because you attach significance to the character of the person who expresses them. That is, in my opinion, a mistake and it is the source of your confusion.

Maybe those comfortable, prosperous, pacifist socialists in Norway?

Nope. They have interests too, like maintaining their neutrality. Anyone who depends on something for the ability to continue making decision will allow their decision to be influenced by whether or not it will affect their continued ability to make decisions.

No one is neutral. However, if you'd like to propose a person you think is neutral, or maybe a committee, or whatever, please do.

Nope. Not at all. I'm comparing the resolution of conflict through competitive dominance to the resolution of conflict through rational compromise and impartial consideration...

Which I explained was a false distinction, but you ignored that.

...though you may consider reason, compromise, and impartiality signs of weakness.

Only when they are misdirected. I also consider brute force a sign of weakness when it is misdirected. Strength is closely related to integrity; to the ability of a whole to remain as it is, unchanged. Weakness means you have imperfections in your structure and you will crumble sooner rather than later. Inconsistency is a sign of weakness. Your argument, for example, is inconsistent and therefore weak.

The unfortunate reality is that people who take what they want by brute force will not listen to reason, and thus must be defeated by resorting to brute force as a defense, which is what the notion of "he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword" speaks to.

But you have not explained why that fact matters. Everyone will die. Not everyone will live successfully. Is it better to be a failure if it ensures you won't "die by the sword?" If you want to succeed greatly, you must risk greatly. No one who has ever conquered another group has failed to see that they might themselves be conquered. However, that doesn't change the fact that they got what they wanted. Since everyone is going to die eventually anyway, they might as well accomplish something.

I am saying that "man" (or at least, some men), unlike other animals, possesses a capacity of reason that gives humanity the option of resolving conflict through compromise and agreement, rather than simply attacking adversaries.

You think that animals don't compromise? You should get out more.

I think your mistake is in assuming that resolving diputes without naked force is inherently good. You are wrong about that.

tossing puppies off of a cliff...

So. . .your point was. . .what? That one crazy person in an organization renders the entire organization crazy? That's not even an argument. It defeats itself before it even gets started.

[Karamazov]

I'm impressed. Normally I'm really hard to offend but you managed to do it.
I'm assuming that you haven't had much to do with the military, otherwise you wouldn't have described us as button pushers who delight in mindless destruction.

Well, It's called hyperbole. You of all people should know what that means and no, I've actually come close to joining the Marines, going through MEPS and the like, since 3 of my cousins are active duty although one is probably going to reserves soon. That's irrelevant to the discussion though, but If you can disprove my characterization of the war, go ahead. If not, have fun debating Tocsin.

I know first hand (including from you) that many from the military are intelligent, not automatons and there would be know factual basis to lump an entire group together. I've done the research and that caricature of the U.S. military "effort" in desert storm sums it up. It's the United States foreign policy under Bush as a whole. It made it cool to be American again. So, I'm sorry if you were offended but A.(this is the internet) and B.(lighten up). Even If I did believe that soldiers were all second tier in the cognition department, I wouldn't expose such huge and baseless reasoning to be targeted.

There were plenty of people upset at the idea of killing bunches of indians.

The ironic thing is that the sort of people who got really upset about what we were doing to the indians were also the sort of people who don't get to have much power. It's amusing that certain philosophies tend to correlate with the power to act on them.

People were too busy reaping the benefits, just like Thomas Jefferson and many framers like him that couldn't depart from their slaves for monetary reasons. So, you're partially right.

But what the hell... let's not try and moralize the natural, amoral application of the marine's superior force over a weak puppy... besides... I'm sure the puppy had it coming... and the marine was just doing his part "defending freedom."

Alright, now this is getting silly. Shouldn't you know better than to debate this way?

[meanlittlechimp]

- Spreading democracy and capitalism DOES defend America's safety, in the general sense. As mentioned by several of the anti-war posters, economic interests weigh heavily in foreign policy: trading partners don't often go to war with each other, though there are several notable exceptions.
Theoretically this is true; but the reality is vastly different. If you think that's the objective of US foreign policy, why are they constantly overthrowing democracies to establish right wing dictatorships? The history of this is undeniable and overwhelming. I've listed dozens of examples of this but you right wingers can't even name a single democracy we installed. When you guys tried, and I debunked it thoroughly, you ignore it and keep making ridiculous statements about our spread of democracy.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


- Oil prices have gone through the roof in the past few years...I guess that has more to do with U.S. profiteering than an exponential increase in global demand, OPEC's business decisions, or environmental policies which restrict alternative supply?

It is mostly due to the rising demand for oil from India and China. The speculators know that future prices will continue to go up with this dynamic and thus bids up prices even further, but the real reason is increasing demand of unprecedented levels and dwindling finite supplies. It's why the Neo-cons wrote policy papers (see Wolfowitz papers) on why we needed to invade Iraq before the first Gulf war. Their analysis is correct, their solution is wrong. If you want to understand foreign policy, you read their policy papers and declassified documents. You don't read the press statements they use, to fool the public in supporting their ridiculously flimsy excuse for war.


- On a similar note, if you wished to imply that our presence in Afghanistan has anything to do with its cheap natural resources....gosh, you're clueless. They have resources, sure...no rail system, paved roads, or ports required for exporting them, but they've got some really pretty gemstones.
If you think it's to find Bin Laden you're clueless. The Soviets invaded because of the valuable pipeline that runs through that country. We're there for mostly the same reason. Every serious middle east analyst is aware of this. Even the neo-cons know this; the only people that don't, are the right wing sheep who think Fox is news, and their way of life is threatened, because the Bush Administration said so.

If you think we're in Afghanistan and Iraq because of terrorists, why were most of the terrorists Saudi? Why would they forge documents implying WMDs when they knew they didn't exist. Why did they write policy papers on our need to invade Iraq back in 1991 (directly because of the rising impact of the industrialization of China)? You're probably not even aware we used similar tricks in Vietnam and fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin incident as a pretense to invade.


- Rigged elections...oh, jeez, here we go again. As opposed to the open and free elections that kept the Communists in power in Russia, Cuba, and El Salvador....bet you're still angry about the 2000 U.S. elections, too, where the evil Bush campaign went so far as to go back into the past and modify the Constitution to ensure that the electoral college system would matter more than a simple majority, thus "stealing" the election...if only Gore had gotten a fourth recount, he would've won that one for sure.

I'm not talking about the US Florida counts (which did occur). I'm talking about CIA actions in various third world countries, where they've been caught and the information declassified. You're probably not even aware we rigged elections in Greece in the 60's (amongst other places) and then overthrow their democratically elected leaders in a coup and installed a right wing strong man torturing and killing pro-democracy students and intellectuals. Ironic, since it was supposedly the birthplace of democracy. If it wasn't declassified information, right wingers like you would still be denying it (but more likely you are simply just ignorant of it).

Again, we have overthrown dozen of democracies covertly or through outright force. It's historical fact, if you can't deal with that reality, go back to your third grade history books that espouse the idea we go planting democracy around the globe, like little flowers. I've given plenty of verifiable evidence in other threads (while none of you can show examples of democracies we have planted).

I'm just not sure if you simply refuse to believe the facts, or can't mentally connect the dots blatantly screaming otherwise. Or the embarrassment of being so unaware of this history, one simply is in denial for being ignorant for so long.

[Nighthawk]

Here's something that was brought up in another thread:



Now, this thread isn't specifically for bandit- this was quoted to illustrate a commonly held notion here in the U.S... which is that our military is "fighting for freedom", "defending freedom", "protecting individual liberties", etc.

What do ya'll reckon? Does the U.S. military fight for out freedoms?

Personally, I have my doubts.

Yes, I can say the same as the original quote. Thirteen years as an armored cavalry officer, some in a war zone. As to the OP ... that is a tough question. I am fairly certain that most soldiers sincerely believe that they are fighting for their country's freedoms. They certainly aren't doing it for the perks, great pay, time off, status, and tons of women (men) throwing themselves at them. I found most soldiers to be quite simplistic in their views and believing in what they are doing. In short, I might not belive in my government, but I do believe in the soldiers who support it. I try to seprate the person from the system.

[Tocsin]

Truth is truth.

What you really mean is "what I think is truth, IS truth... MY truth is truth, not yours."

I think your mistake is in assuming that resolving diputes without naked force is inherently good. You are wrong about that.

Naked force and the threat of force is what the Nazis, Soviet communists, Chinese communists, and North Korea count(ed) on to maintain their regimes.

Would you argue that Communist China and North Korea are correct in relying on the use of military and police force to repress opposition and maintain absolutist control over the populace?

So. . .your point was. . .what? That one crazy person in an organization renders the entire organization crazy? That's not even an argument. It defeats itself before it even gets started.

Ah, yes... "just a few bad apples" Where have I heard THAT before?

Alright, now this is getting silly. Shouldn't you know better than to debate this way?

The military indoctrinates people into accepting a notion that the application of violence is not reprehensible, but acceptable, under some circumstances. If violence is acceptable under some circumstances, it is not hard to see how some marines would assume that it is also acceptable as a form of entertainment - hence: throwing puppies off of cliffs for fun.

Its a pity you can't see the connection between training people to be violent and how that training eventually expresses itself, but it is not surprising.

[Karamazov]

The military indoctrinates people into accepting a notion that the application of violence is not reprehensible, but acceptable, under some circumstances. If violence is accpetable under some circumstances, it is not hard to see how some marines would assume that it is also acceptable as a form of entertainment - hence: throwing puppies off of cliffs for fun.

Its a pity you can't see the connection between training people to be violent and how that training eventually expresses itself, but it is not surprising.

You've clearly haven't been up to snuff in military history since the industrial revolution. This is inherent with every military force thus far. The people that fight on the front lines, by and large, have never come from the economically well off, properly educated sector of a society. There are always exceptions yet, taking one incident as if it's emblematic of the entire U.S. military force, is ridiculous. Try reading some books and talking to people.

You can pity me If it makes you feel better.

[blueback]

I've actually come close to joining the Marines, going through MEPS and the like, since 3 of my cousins are active duty although one is probably going to reserves soon. That's irrelevant to the discussion though,

Yeah. I saw a woman give birth once. I guess I know what it's like. If it's irrelevant why did you bring it up?

but If you can disprove my characterization of the war, go ahead.

I wasn't bothered by your characterization of the war, but by your characterization of the people who fought it.

I'm sorry if you were offended but A.(this is the internet) and B.(lighten up).

A. thanks captain obvious
B. I just felt like mentioning it. I prefaced it by pointing out that it was unusual for me to get offended. I learned something new about myself.

you're partially right.

Which part is wrong?

What you really mean is "what I think is truth, IS truth... MY truth is truth, not yours."

No, I meant exactly what I wrote.
Truth is truth. I'm more interested in uncovering and defining it than in getting into a pissing contest with you.

Naked force and the threat of force is what the Nazis, Soviet communists, Chinese communists, and North Korea count(ed) on to maintain their regimes.

Every "regime" in history worth mentioning used "naked force or the threat of force." Singling out the ones people generally don't like as special, for using force and the threat of force, is absurd.

Would you argue that Communist China and North Korea are correct in relying on the use of military and police force to repress opposition and maintain absolutist control over the populace?

Do you mean morally correct or do you mean tactically correct?
I think that freedom is a pretty good idea and that people who initiate the use of force against others are generally wrong. However, you keep ignoring my point that force (in and of itself) is not right or wrong. You can't condemn someone JUST because they used force. Well, you can, but you'd be inconsistent.

Ah, yes... "just a few bad apples" Where have I heard THAT before?

I dunno, you didn't hear it from me, so I don't see how it's relevant.

The military indoctrinates people into accepting a notion that the application of violence is not reprehensible, but acceptable, under some circumstances.

Uh, yeah. I'm pretty sure that it's the military's job to use violence in the appropriate circumstances. I think it's actually part of the definition.

Of course, cops and firemen use violence "under some circumstances" too. Hell, EVERYONE "accepts" that "violence is not reprehensible...under some circumstances." Everyone, that is, except you.

You did it again. You said something that could apply to absolutely everyone but you tried to only say it about the groups/people that you don't like so that they sounded worse.

If violence is acceptable under some circumstances, it is not hard to see how some marines would assume that it is also acceptable as a form of entertainment - hence: throwing puppies off of cliffs for fun.

Uh hu.
So you're saying that he was a member of PETA before the evil Marine Corps got ahold of him and brainwashed his fragile little mind? I suppose you have some emperical evidence to back up the idea that there is a higher percentage of puppy abusers in the Marine Corps than in the civilian population.

Its a pity you can't see the connection between training people to be violent and how that training eventually expresses itself, but it is not surprising.

Whatever, dude. There's no telling what a person will do. The vast majority of service persons are more mature than their civilian peers. You can't hold up one isolated example of a psycho and claim that it proves everyone in the military is a psycho.

[Karamazov]

Yeah. I saw a woman give birth once. I guess I know what it's like. If it's irrelevant why did you bring it up?

Yes, I saw one woman give birth as well and you have offended me by trivializing it. You obviously haven't had much experience.

Wow, I feel different, like I'm actually offended or something.

Since apparently you assumed I didn't know anything about the military, I decided to let you know that I'm familiar with the process and the people. Of course, If it's irrelevant, why mention it in the first place? You don't need to be in the military to know better and not generalize.

I wasn't bothered by your characterization of the war, but by your characterization of the people who fought it.

I wasn't characterizing the individual soldier, merely the enterprise as a whole of U.S. foreign policy, during the Gulf War. I can understand since the internet doesn't communicate subtleties very well. If I wanted to characterize a soldier that way, I'd be more explicit and not care anyway. Maybe prefacing it by having him smearing peanut butter on his face or maybe get into shenanigans with Laurel and Hardy, I don't know.

A. thanks captain obvious
B. I just felt like mentioning it. I prefaced it by pointing out that it was unusual for me to get offended. I learned something new about myself.

A. Just wanted to clear up any misunderstanding.
B. Congratulations. That's a good thing about these forums.

Which part is wrong?

Actually, that was my mistake, since I didn't read your comment thoroughly enough. See? we all make that mistake ;P

[jadefalcon]

Yes they do. There is an idea that the fighting GI is solely responsible for defending the country- but there are people behind the lines- such as engineers, technicians and cyber security (air force) that are preventing a multitude of hacks daily as well as repairing and engineering new combat platforms. Every person in the service has their part in defending freedom and country and I thank them for their service. I hate it that the military is the tool of politicians- thats how its been and will continue to be. Was Vietnam or Korea defending US territory? nope just political ideologies. World War II was protecting the security of the world (and ourselves). The reason we go to war in the first place may not be to defend the border, but each person's (in the service) actions contribute to the protection of the state. Yes they all make a difference.

[Karamazov]

Yes they do. There is an idea that the fighting GI is solely responsible for defending the country- but there are people behind the lines- such as engineers, technicians and cyber security (air force) that are preventing a multitude of hacks daily as well as repairing and engineering new combat platforms. Every person in the service has their part in defending freedom and country and I thank them for their service. I hate it that the military is the tool of politicians- thats how its been and will continue to be. Was Vietnam or Korea defending US territory? nope just political ideologies. World War II was protecting the security of the world (and ourselves). The reason we go to war in the first place may not be to defend the border, but each person's (in the service) actions contribute to the protection of the state. Yes they all make a difference.

Well, naturally, there are many facets to defense but this is within the context of the military taking proactive steps with the deployment of equipment, manpower and representatives. You're right in that they all play an important part but, generally speaking, much of it has been to used to pinpoint and neutralize large-scale organized crime (which terrorists can rightly fall under). There has been efforts by other countries such as China, to hack in to our databases and Russia's own vicious attack on Georgian networks is also evident of other countries abilities.

[acyckowski]

Theoretically this is true; but the reality is vastly different. If you think that's the objective of US foreign policy, why are they constantly overthrowing democracies to establish right wing dictatorships? The history of this is undeniable and overwhelming. I've listed dozens of examples of this but you right wingers can't even name a single democracy we installed. When you guys tried, and I debunked it thoroughly, you ignore it and keep making ridiculous statements about our spread of democracy.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Why should I read your previous threads on side-issues when you obviously didn't read what I wrote? It ought to be obvious that "defending democracy" is not the same as "spreading democracy and capitalism does defend America's safety, in general." The latter is clearly more aligned with America's foreign policy...that is, to "defend America's safety." Spreading democracy and capitalism is a method, but not the exclusive method. Supplying the Muj with Stinger missiles had nothing to do with democracy or capitalism, but it caused the Soviets to ruin themselves financially. Speaking of the Big Bad Bear, the USSR used to have elections, too...how legitimate a "democracy" is a matter of perspective, and I would imagine that the State Department views the legitimacy of Hugo Chavez on par with that of a Chicago Alderman.

Now, as far as the specific region we're dealing with, it is a completely different cultural perspective than the West. If you are Strong, and the Weak challenges you, failing to react is considered a sign of weakness. This makes the Weak bolder in their challenges to the Strong. A balanced foreign policy takes into account the sensibilities of the nations/cultures we're dealing with, and deals with them on their terms...not by simply projecting the values of western academics on them. Dealing with Afghanistan or Iraq requires different approach than does dealing with the UK.

It is mostly due to the rising demand for oil from India and China. The speculators know that future prices will continue to go up with this dynamic and thus bids up prices even further, but the real reason is increasing demand of unprecedented levels and dwindling finite supplies. It's why the Neo-cons wrote policy papers (see Wolfowitz papers) on why we needed to invade Iraq before the first Gulf war. Their analysis is correct, their solution is wrong. If you want to understand foreign policy, you read their policy papers and declassified documents. You don't read the press statements they use, to fool the public in supporting their ridiculously flimsy excuse for war.

Of course it's due to the rising demand for oil.

But if the Neo-cons were so prescient and influential, how come we aren't getting oil at cost from Iraq? You can point to position papers all day long, but your premise that Iraq is an oil-grab is pretty much invalidated by the obvious: we've had that country in our control for five years, but we're still buying oil from the Saudis.

Yeah, that 20-20 hindsight is great, isn't it?

Policy papers are published by the hundreds of thousands. Finding one from somebody who had a position of some influence in the executive branch during a critical time raises questions about the motivations of, but it is intellectually dishonest to project that position on the scores of people involved in the decision-making process.

Honestly, you think Cheney, Powell, Rice, and everybody else rolled over to Wolfowitz? Wolfowitz?

Counter-premise: multiple advisors agreed with the President's course of action for their own unique set of reasons, which overlap to some extent with each other as well as the President's set of reasons. In other words, a group of informed men and women studied a complex problem and arrived at a similar-enough solution independently.


If you think it's to find Bin Laden you're clueless.

Who said anything about finding Bin Laden? We invaded to punish the Taliban for hiding Bin Laden. That was pretty clearly stated in the beginning, even if the press lost sight of it immediately. Either for us or against us, that kind of thing. We told the Taliban to turn him over, they refused, we punished them by removing them from power.

The Soviets invaded because of the valuable pipeline that runs through that country. We're there for mostly the same reason. Every serious middle east analyst is aware of this.

Funny, I didn't see the pipeline. I saw a lot of skinny sheep, but no pipeline.
What about the serious middle east analysts who think the Soviets were there because they had a growing Muslim problem in their southern provinces? Or does "serious" refer only to those who agree with you?

Even the neo-cons know this; the only people that don't, are the right wing sheep who think Fox is news, and their way of life is threatened, because the Bush Administration said so.

Are you even remotely paying attention to the world around you? It is historically unusual for US skyscrapers to be brought down by Muslim extremists. I would say that the threat could at least be considered "manifest."

If you think we're in Afghanistan and Iraq because of terrorists, why were most of the terrorists Saudi? Why would they forge documents implying WMDs when they knew they didn't exist. Why did they write policy papers on our need to invade Iraq back in 1991 (directly because of the rising impact of the industrialization of China)? You're probably not even aware we used similar tricks in Vietnam and fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin incident as a pretense to invade.

Yeah, and FDR knew all about Pearl Harbor, too. I mean, Oh My God, No! Politicians manipulating a gullible press to further a political position?!?! Say it ain't so!

You're probably not even aware that the Gulf of Tonkin has absolutely nothing to do with the decision to stop at the Kuwait-Iraq border in 1991. Largely, the American position (not just Wolfowitz') was to go all the way to Baghdad, however Bush 41 deferred to the coalition of Arab allies...and signed a CEASE-FIRE with Hussein. Who then, in turn violated all the terms. Well, for 8 years, we had an executive branch that was concerned with other affairs, so to speak.

In 2003, the world was a bit different. The Saudis weren't so scared of Iraq anymore, Syria was transitioning, Iran was building, etc...multiple states were actively or tacitly supporting terrorism and known or reasonably suspected to be developing WMD's. Now, we needed to stop the support of terrorism, as well as the proliferation of WMD's. Ah, but where? Where, indeed? North Korea, as so many on the left suggested back then? Invade Iran under accusations only? Or invade Iraq, where we had a valid contract to call them on?

Seen from the perspective of the Middle East states, why would Syria or Libya take the U.S. seriously if we failed to follow through on our threat to resume hostilities with Iraq if they didn't openly disarm? Why should they?

I'm not talking about the US Florida counts (which did occur). I'm talking about CIA actions in various third world countries, where they've been caught and the information declassified. You're probably not even aware we rigged elections in Greece in the 60's (amongst other places) and then overthrow their democratically elected leaders in a coup and installed a right wing strong man torturing and killing pro-democracy students and intellectuals. Ironic, since it was supposedly the birthplace of democracy. If it wasn't declassified information, right wingers like you would still be denying it (but more likely you are simply just ignorant of it).

Again, we have overthrown dozen of democracies covertly or through outright force. It's historical fact, if you can't deal with that reality, go back to your third grade history books that espouse the idea we go planting democracy around the globe, like little flowers. I've given plenty of verifiable evidence in other threads (while none of you can show examples of democracies we have planted).

I'm just not sure if you simply refuse to believe the facts, or can't mentally connect the dots blatantly screaming otherwise. Or the embarrassment of being so unaware of this history, one simply is in denial for being ignorant for so long.

Tell me, how much aluminum foil would it take to make a hat in a 7 and a half?

[meanlittlechimp]

Why should I read your previous threads on side-issues when you obviously didn't read what I wrote? It ought to be obvious that "defending democracy" is not the same as "spreading democracy and capitalism does defend America's safety, in general." The latter is clearly more aligned with America's foreign policy...that is, to "defend America's safety." Spreading democracy and capitalism is a method, but not the exclusive method.

So you are saying we are defending our democracy by preventing other nations from having it? or you are saying claims that we overthrow democracies and (actually prevent democracies from occurring) is false?


Of course it's due to the rising demand for oil.

But if the Neo-cons were so prescient and influential, how come we aren't getting oil at cost from Iraq? You can point to position papers all day long, but your premise that Iraq is an oil-grab is pretty much invalidated by the obvious: we've had that country in our control for five years, but we're still buying oil from the Saudis.

The EXACT same companies who were influential in the overthrew of Kaseem (and in the installation of the Baathists) and the overthrow of Mossadegh, were the same oil companies that received no bid contracts on Iraq's oil.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's NOT about WMDs or spreading democracy - I don't see how you can think otherwise unless Fox is one's only source of news. We've overthrown the few progressive democracies the Middle East ever had! You don't contend this, do you?

Moreover, when the country was getting looted, we had plenty of offers from left and right wing militia to prevent it, but we ordered them to let it proceed. We let them loot everything EXCEPT one place - The ministry of oil. They did more damage to the country in one week than the entire year's GNP of the nation. Military officials in Iraq, along with entire Iraqi population were outraged, but the people calling the shots in Washington only cared about one thing, obviously. These documentaries has candid interviews from the Pentagon, and Army officials in Iraq at the time.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Policy papers are published by the hundreds of thousands. Finding one from somebody who had a position of some influence in the executive branch during a critical time raises questions about the motivations of, but it is intellectually dishonest to project that position on the scores of people involved in the decision-making process.

Honestly, you think Cheney, Powell, Rice, and everybody else rolled over to Wolfowitz? Wolfowitz?

Wolfowitz is not just another policy wonk - he was Secretary of Defense. He brought up the position initially in '91, as Undersecretary of Defense (below Cheney) - of course he didn't execute it alone; but he is widely credited as the architect on policy in Iraq. They already agreed to his position from the start based on his policy papers (way before Rice was even in office). Rice executes policy, she doesn't come up with the stuff.

I read the Wolfowitz papers, and they are indeed on point. It was brilliant in many ways and accurate. They knew the veracity in his premise. I disagree with their solution, but the premises were 100% accurate. If you really are interested in the subject, you might want to read it.


Funny, I didn't see the pipeline. I saw a lot of skinny sheep, but no pipeline.
What about the serious middle east analysts who think the Soviets were there because they had a growing Muslim problem in their southern provinces? Or does "serious" refer only to those who agree with you?

You didn't see the pipeline on the tightly government controlled access to the news on the war? Try reading a foreign policy journal. If you want to brush off a serious issue because you didn't see it on your local news, no wonder you believe everything the neo-cons say.

You really think we're there to teach the Taliban a lesson? Really? That's a jingoistic cliche, not foreign policy.

There are numerous accounts and good documentaries on the closed door meetings after 9/11. It's pretty overwhelming evidence from multiple credible sources including the Former Treasury Secretary. Have you read any books on the subject or viewed any of the first hand accounts?


Your "easily" verifiable facts included body counts compiled by Hanoi.

First, it's not just Hanoi's numbers, Mcnamara had similar numbers which, i've already posted. In case you don't know who McNamara is, he was secretary of State and oversaw the bombing of Indochina.

Secondly, I said Ho Chi Minh would have won a landslide in a DEMOCRATic election. It doesn't mean he was a member of the democratic party.

Lastly, after your claim that are foreign policy motives are to install democracies on the other thread, (after listed at least a dozen counter-examples) - I challenged you to name some democracies we did install to which you replied........


As for democracies who got propped up as a result of US policy.On top of my head... Greece, the Phillipines, Chile, Nicaragua, the Weimar Republic, about everything behind the Iron curtain, South Korea, Thailand,etc...

I then pointed out the contrary by stating the actual historical record (in the Obama thread, which I'm reposting here since it's far more relevant to this thread)

Nicaragua: We tried to overthrew the rightful government there and set up death squads financed by cocaine smuggling. What are you talking about? We invaded with mercenaries. Somosa was a dictactor reviled by his own people, the Sandinistas had overwhelming popular support and would have won any election easily. You know nothing about the history of the region. Talk to a Nicaraguan, or get a book and a clue. Do you even know what the Iran-Contra affair was?

Korea: We installed a dictator - Park Chung He, the democracy part happened later on their own accord through protest and open revulsion against his repressive regime.

Chile: Are you referring to our overthrow of DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Allende, and our installation of a military dictatorship - Pinochet? We called Allende a "communist" because he didn't want to allow the US to plunder it's resources. Allende had nothing against free trade or capitalism.

Weimar Republic: We did not install the Weimar Republic. I can't fathom where you would get this idea.

Greece:The USG created the Greek secret police (KYP) and backs military coups in 1949, 1967 and 1973. Dictatorships ruled with US backing during the periods of 1949-1952 and 1967-1974.

"Fuck your parliament and your constitution."
--President Johnson to Greek Ambassador, Alexander Matsas, June

Phillipines: Have you ever heard of Marcos? He was the dictatorship we installed for over 20 yrs. We brutally supressed all pro-democracy movements for decades. We labeled the anti-Marcos movement (overwhelming majority of the pop.) "communist" again because they didn't want to live under a dictatorship. They were seekers or democracy (we didn't want elections because that meant our man, Marcos, would easily be voted out). Do you think Filipinos read Karl Marx or think about economic systems or communism at all? They just didn't want a brutal dictator, but any protest against Marcos is dubbed "communist" by the sheep, who no nothing of history.

How on earth do you contend that we spread this democracy, when you can't name an example. Are you the least bit embarrassed at the inaccuracy of your claims at all? How do you just ignore everything I've listed and still contend we install democracies around the globe, and just call me an idiot, when it's obvious you have no idea of the histories of the countries, YOU mentioned in a feeble attempt to support your argument.

Have you bothered to find any democracies we did install since this debate first started, or do you just want to blindly cling to your original position - without being able to name a single piece of evidence to support your claim?

[Mechanical Messiah]

Seems to be lost on some that our soldiers don't fight for "freedom". They fight for American Interests.

But "fighting for our freedoms!!" seems to really motivate people.

It just has a nicer ring than "killing innocnets and not-so-innocents alike, laying waste to infrastructure, and enforcing our will on a bunch of brown people halfway around the world".

[blueback]

Well, yeah. Wars are commanded by the old, but fought by the young, and the young won't fight wars for the same reason the old command them. This is "war" in the general sense. I suppose "coercion" would work just as well.

Oh the other hand, I'm not convinced that the majority of people really know what's in their best interest. Looking at a long enough time horizon often leads to conclusions that seem contradictory to conclusions based on a short time horizon. Additionally, I'm not convinced that much of the world is ready to settle down and stop fighting. If they're not, then we have to maintain the ability to fight.

[Mechanical Messiah]

Well, yeah. Wars are commanded by the old, but fought by the young, and the young won't fight wars for the same reason the old command them. This is "war" in the general sense. I suppose "coercion" would work just as well.

Oh the other hand, I'm not convinced that the majority of people really know what's in their best interest. Looking at a long enough time horizon often leads to conclusions that seem contradictory to conclusions based on a short time horizon. Additionally, I'm not convinced that much of the world is ready to settle down and stop fighting. If they're not, then we have to maintain the ability to fight.

I reckon all that is true enough... but it ain't what this thread is about.

This thread is about the ridiculous notion that Amerikan soldiers are Fighting for our Freedoms™.

Well... lots probably think they are. But it looks to me like these people are hired thugs for the rich & powerful. Neither THEIR nor MY freedom is at stake in any of their current or recent projects.

[Dreamer]

I reckon all that is true enough... but it ain't what this thread is about.

This thread is about the ridiculous notion that Amerikan soldiers are Fighting for our Freedoms™.

Well... lots probably think they are. But it looks to me like these people are hired thugs for the rich & powerful. Neither THEIR nor MY freedom is at stake in any of their current or recent projects. Yes, I agree, we should recede
to the ideology of Charles Lindbergh: "Amerika first!"

The rest of the world should go to hell.

[Mechanical Messiah]

Yes, I agree, we should recede
to the ideology of Charles Lindbergh: "Amerika first!"

The rest of the world should go to hell.

Huh... who'd've thought we'd agree on something.

But I don't think you really mean it.

[blueback]

I already delt with the phrase "soldiers defend freedom." Technically, it is accurate as it stands. Of course, you are actually trying to disprove the phrase "soldiers fight ONLY for freedom" which is a different idea. The things our soldiers do, for the most part, are poactive steps to maintain a global environment that is not threatening to our country. They also do other things.

Like Clausewitz (I have no idea how to spell that and I don't care) said; war is politics by other means. There is always a reason, and it always seems like a good idea to the people who implement it at the time they make the decision. It's easy to condemn people in hindsight for things they didn't know at the time. No one can predict the future; they can just take their best guess. Just because something ends up backfiring doesn't mean it didn't seem like a good idea.

Oh, and Dreamer and Chimp obviously agree, they are just talking about different points on the same time line.

[Mechanical Messiah]

I'd grudgingly admit that it's true that, as Bandit put it, soldiers "protect our freedoms".

It ain't true in the way that he means it... but it's technically true in a sense.

But it ain't true to say that soldiers "defend" freedom. That implies that it's under attack.

Best I can tell, the single greatest threat to my own freedom is the U.S. government. And I don't see any soldiers fighting the folks who sign their checks.

[blueback]

I'd grudgingly admit that it's true that, as Bandit put it, soldiers "protect our freedoms"...But it ain't true to say that soldiers "defend" freedom. That implies that it's under attack.

Best I can tell, the single greatest threat to my own freedom is the U.S. government. And I don't see any soldiers fighting the folks who sign their checks.

What distinction are you drawing between "protect" and "defend?"

Technically, if you look far enough into the future, plenty of things are direct threats to our freedom. At least, they are in the sense that they will lead inevitably to reduced freedom. Of course the farther out you look the less certain you can be. That situation requires that you make judgment calls, and it is impossible to make them all correctly. However, if you made every call attempting to defend freedom, is it wrong to say you were defending freedom? I would say that a knight defending a kingdom was still defending it even if the kingdom is destroyed. It is the intention that matters. Now, he might not be defending it effectively, but that is a different idea.

Is the US government currently chasing you for some reason?

[kimsaid]

Comparing other people to Hitler is the same as accusing them of wanting to kill millions of people for no other reason then they're there. Hitler's ideology was based on the idea that the Germanic people should prove their superiority through actual fighting. That is why they were aggressive and why they were a threat to the entire world.

You don't understand Nazi Germany very well. Of course it isn't the same as accusing them of wanting to kill millions of people for no other reason than they're there. That would never have worked. It was, among other things, about losing WWI and blaming everyone else but themselves for the desperation of the German people after the Treaty of Versailles. Check it out. The holocaust was a part of the strategy, not the purpose of the war.

Fascism is an authoritarian's wet dream. Here you go...

Top Ten Signs You Might Be a Fascist (there are fourteen, so fourteen signs)

1) Powerful & Continuing Nationalism
2) Disdain for Recognition of Human Rights
3) Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
4) Supremacy of the Military
5) Rampant Sexism
6) Controlled Mass Media
7) Obsession with National Security
8) Religion & Government are Intertwined
9) Corporate Power is Protected
10) Labor Power is Suppressed
11) Disdain for Intellectuals & Artists
12) Obsession with Crime & Punishment
13) Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
14) Fraudulent Elections

Congratulations

I tried to fix the quotes but it didn't work...

[releviau04]

I try as much as I can......but it's hard when its not the military that makes the choices on who or what they will fight for, but command directed. Sad, but true.

[Agile]

I have the utmost respect for those that defend/protect our freedoms. Most of the people who have actually acted to defend/protect our freedoms have been assassinated. Our freedom has almost never been under attack, where we needed to fight in a war to defend it. By and large, our freedoms are attacked when we go to school, when we log onto the internet, and when we turn on the television. That is where the real battles take place. As each individual's beliefs are shaped by the media they are exposed/expose themselves to, they make decisions based on those foundations that lead them to voluntarily give away their freedom, their personal responsibility, and in some cases, their lives.

[blueback]

Most of the people who have actually acted to defend/protect our freedoms have been assassinated.

A list would be nice. What are you basing this on?

Our freedom has almost never been under attack, where we needed to fight in a war to defend it.

Again, some examples would help. Also, please define 'under attack', 'need', and'war'.

By and large, our freedoms are attacked when we go to school, when we log onto the internet, and when we turn on the television.

All voluntary activities. So, do you mean that our action of watching media (etc) is an attack on our own freedoms or do you mean that when we watch media (etc) we open ourselves up for other people to attack our freedoms?

As each individual's beliefs are shaped by the media they are exposed/expose themselves to, they make decisions based on those foundations that lead them to voluntarily give away their freedom, their personal responsibility, and in some cases, their lives.

So. . .do you think that we would have more freedom if no one watched the media? Or just if the media only played what you wanted?