Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
And? Is he really worth the cost of the lives of thousands of servicemen, untold numbers of civilians and billions of dollars.
Yes, I understand all that. These men and women voluntarily put their lives at risk on the behalf of others. At least we could extend them the courtesy of not wasting them in pointless and unjustified conflicts.
Okay. Clarification. You don't know what justification higher command has. Now, granted, if they're playing in a field, tra-lalalalalin', then yeah, that's unjustified on multiple levels. But, my thoughts, opinions and actions would differ from the average citizen in that time and area. There'd already been years of propaganda put forth to say that these people are less than you. If you're told for years that someone is less than you, eventually you get desensitized to the plight, then it's just like killing an animal.
Ask the servicemen if he is. Bet you'll get the answer in the affirmative from the average servicemen.
It's not pointless to the servicemen though. It has purpose and justification.
Yeah, special operations are a pain in the ass, though. Especially when you can't find the guy, and he's in a moutainous country with lots of caves to hide in. Not to mention neighboring countries.
Because I believe that if a man witnesses unjust acts, he has a responsibility to stop it, or try to stop it at the very least. I honestly believe that more would've died. Of course, that's just my opinion.
Churchill didn't care about stopping the invasions. He loved the idea of going to war. If the purpose was to hem Germany in, Britain could have simply provided financial support, weaponry and logistical assistance to the people who already really wanted to fight, the partisans of Poland and Czechoslovakia. This worked really well in one of the few cost-effective military adventures the US has taken, and it would have worked back then, too. Trouble is, it wouldn't have let Churchill look like a big man.
I'm sure that Dr Mengele and Adolf Eichmann would be delighted to know that they were not responsible for their actions in the Holocaust!
I find the suggestion that His Majesty's Government in 1939 (of which Mr Churchill was not a member) had responsibility for the deaths in the camps both insulting and objectionable. It also has absolutely nothing to do with the OP.
Okay. Clarification. You don't know what justification higher command has. Now, granted, if they're playing in a field, tra-lalalalalin', then yeah, that's unjustified on multiple levels. But, my thoughts, opinions and actions would differ from the average citizen in that time and area. There'd already been years of propaganda put forth to say that these people are less than you. If you're told for years that someone is less than you, eventually you get desensitized to the plight, then it's just like killing an animal.
You still have not answered my question. So I'll restate it: Would you dutifully follow an order that you knew to be illegal or in violation of the rules of war? Would you willingly follow an order that went against your morals? If ordered to slaughter a group of innocent people would you do so?
Ask the servicemen if he is. Bet you'll get the answer in the affirmative from the average servicemen.
It's not pointless to the servicemen though. It has purpose and justification.
I have. One of my best friends since childhood has been serving in the Army since 2000. Going by the conversations we've I don't think he'd agree with you on ether point there.
Yeah, special operations are a pain in the ass, though. Especially when you can't find the guy, and he's in a moutainous country with lots of caves to hide in. Not to mention neighboring countries.
And the ground invasion has been a better strategy?
Churchill didn't care about stopping the invasions. He loved the idea of going to war. If the purpose was to hem Germany in, Britain could have simply provided financial support, weaponry and logistical assistance to the people who already really wanted to fight, the partisans of Poland and Czechoslovakia. This worked really well in one of the few cost-effective military adventures the US has taken, and it would have worked back then, too. Trouble is, it wouldn't have let Churchill look like a big man.
That would never work. One of those things that looks great on paper, but, yeah. Such things aren't feasible. Especially against an enemy with so much military power that fights so damned well. Plus, once Britian was in the war, they were getting their asses handed to them by the Nazis. That is not an enemy you can fight with "support". They were too well organized, too efficient, and too advanced militarily. Especially with the crap they were throwin' down range. And if you want to look at it from this point of view, the world was in a depression. What better way to get out of a depression than revving up the factories for a war? Production booms, dollar value rockets, you're good.
You still have not answered my question. So I'll restate it: Would you dutifully follow an order that you knew to be illegal or in violation of the rules of war? Would you willingly follow an order that went against your morals? If ordered to slaughter a group of innocent people would you do so?
I have. One of my best friends since childhood has been serving in the Army since 2000. Going by the conversations we've I don't think he'd agree with you on ether point there.
And the ground invasion has been a better strategy?
I wouldn't. But, what I would or wouldn't do is the result of living in a country, time, and society where racial discrimination is not the norm. Therefore, my response would be vastly different from a 19 year old Nazi wanting to protect The Fatherland.
There's the issue. A childhood friend. A friend is often someone who shares a common set of values. And, besides, he's not representative of the majority, unless of course he's set out to survey the vast majority of servicemembers and gotten the same response.
And if you want to look at it from this point of view, the world was in a depression. What better way to get out of a depression than revving up the factories for a war? Production booms, dollar value rockets, you're good.
When I spoke of cost, I wasn't talking about finance. Are you seriously weighing the subsequent uptick in US financial strength against the deaths of 20 million people?
I wouldn't. But, what I would or wouldn't do is the result of living in a country, time, and society where racial discrimination is not the norm. Therefore, my response would be vastly different from a 19 year old Nazi wanting to protect The Fatherland.
So then you agree that a soldier's role isn't necessarily to blindly follow any order given?
There's the issue. A childhood friend. A friend is often someone who shares a common set of values. And, besides, he's not representative of the majority, unless of course he's set out to survey the vast majority of servicemembers and gotten the same response.
So you tell me to "ask a serviceman" and I state that I have and somehow this is invalid because of the particular relationship between me and the serviceman in question? That's kind of changing the "rules" as you go along isn't it?
How has the ground invasion been anymore successful in achieving our goal in Afghanistan, that being to apprehend Osama bin Ladin? Well, at least that was the goal until Bush decided that it wasn't after all once it became clear that bin Ladin had outwitted us.
They suffered setbacks in conventional warfare. An occupation struggling against a resourceful guerilla campaign is a different matter.
When I spoke of cost, I wasn't talking about finance. Are you seriously weighing the subsequent uptick in US financial strength against the deaths of 20 million people?
I've read plenty of history books, my friend. Many, many history books.
We tried the whole supply them financially and militarily approach. Vietnam. Didn't end so well.
France. 'Nough Said. There's your guerilla warfare campaign. Didn't work out so well. The French Resistance was absolutely vital in stopping the Third Reich, but they couldn't have done it by themselves. And, had Britian not stepped up, how long do you think it would have been before Hitler took all of Europe. Then started on Asia.
No, I'm not saying that those deaths aren't tragic. Trust me, I know they are. But, how else do you expect to be free? Like it or not, warfare is necessary. Fighting is necessary.
So then you agree that a soldier's role isn't necessarily to blindly follow any order given?
So you tell me to "ask a serviceman" and I state that I have and somehow this is invalid because of the particular relationship between me and the serviceman in question? That's kind of changing the "rules" as you go along isn't it?
How has the ground invasion been anymore successful in achieving our goal in Afghanistan, that being to apprehend Osama bin Ladin? Well, at least that was the goal until Bush decided that it wasn't after all once it became clear that bin Ladin had outwitted us.
It's not, but, again, look at the individual. I believe that it would be wrong. But, according to the Nazi regime, and what someone in that place would believe, they were acting in the right. Right and wrong is dependent on the society.
No, I said the average. The average isn't an individual. The rules haven't changed.
Hey, man, you want some Taliban jerk-off runnin' around, taking MORE lives. And, that wasn't the only goal. The goal is to defend against Terrorism. Kind of what we're doin'. But, to answer the question, haven't made terrific strides. But, as far as the other goals... protecting the American people, all that jazz, yeah, we're getting pretty far.
It's not, but, again, look at the individual. I believe that it would be wrong. But, according to the Nazi regime, and what someone in that place would believe, they were acting in the right. Right and wrong is dependent on the society.
So do you believe that the actions of those in the Nazi regime are excused because they were simply following orders?
No, I said the average. The average isn't an individual. The rules haven't changed.
I have no more reason to believe that your view represents the average than his.
Hey, man, you want some Taliban jerk-off runnin' around, taking MORE lives. And, that wasn't the only goal. The goal is to defend against Terrorism. Kind of what we're doin'. But, to answer the question, haven't made terrific strides. But, as far as the other goals... protecting the American people, all that jazz, yeah, we're getting pretty far.
How exactly have we defended against terrorism and how exactly have the American people been protected these last few years? And what exactly makes us worth more than the innocent lives we've destroyed with these campaigns?
We tried the whole supply them financially and militarily approach. Vietnam. Didn't end so well.
Actually, Vietnam is a perfect example of proxy guerilla war driving out an illegitimate occupier (the US, and France before that.)
France. 'Nough Said. There's your guerilla warfare campaign. Didn't work out so well. The French Resistance was absolutely vital in stopping the Third Reich, but they couldn't have done it by themselves. And, had Britian not stepped up, how long do you think it would have been before Hitler took all of Europe. Then started on Asia.
This is so backwards. First of all, Germany didn't invade France until Britain had been bombing and blockading German territory for months. The country was already on a total war footing, and had good reason to believe that if it backed down, it would face terms commensurate with those of the Treaty of Versailles. It took France as a defensive move. The point of the kind of guerilla war I'm talking about is to convince the occupier that their imperialism is not economically viable. It's not going to work if they regard the occupation as a matter of survival.
No, I'm not saying that those deaths aren't tragic. Trust me, I know they are. But, how else do you expect to be free? Like it or not, warfare is necessary. Fighting is necessary.
I agree. I'm just saying people resort to it far more than they actually need to, with far more gusto than is warranted, and with tragic ignorance for the true costs.
So do you believe that the actions of those in the Nazi regime are excused because they were simply following orders?
I have no more reason to believe that your view represents the average than his.
How exactly have we defended against terrorism and how exactly have the American people been protected these last few years? And what exactly makes us worth more than the innocent lives we've destroyed with these campaigns?
I'm not trying to excuse them. I'm saying why a lowly private, or whatever they call them, would do those things. I can't pardon their actions anymore than they can pradon mine.
And I have no reason to believe that his viewpoint represents the average.
You seen any buildings blown up roundabout here lately? I'm not saying that it doesn't suck that innocent people died. And, I'm certainly not saying that we're worth more than them. But, it's a war. You fight to preserve your way of life, and in this case, to stay alive. I'm not about to let some extremist with the sole intent to kill me, my countrymen, or any body solely because of the misguided teachings of some whacked out cleric carry out his purpose. I'm not going to let someone forcibly convert people to Fundementalist (and skewered) Islam solely because I won't fight. Hell with that. You threaten my country, and my way of life, I will use the boot.
Actually, Vietnam is a perfect example of proxy guerilla war driving out an illegitimate occupier (the US, and France before that.)
This is so backwards. First of all, Germany didn't invade France until Britain had been bombing and blockading German territory for months. The country was already on a total war footing, and had good reason to believe that if it backed down, it would face terms commensurate with those of the Treaty of Versailles. It took France as a defensive move. The point of the kind of guerilla war I'm talking about is to convince the occupier that their imperialism is not economically viable. It's not going to work if they regard the occupation as a matter of survival.
I agree. I'm just saying people resort to it far more than they actually need to, with far more gusto than is warranted, and with tragic ignorance for the true costs.
Vietnam was a matter of trying to prevent Communism from spreading. The Communist North, and the Democratic South.
Guerilla warfare doesn't always convince an occupier that they have to leave. It can actually do just the opposite. It can strengthen the resolve of the invading nation.
I couldn't agree with that more. It's generally a first resort rather than a last.
Why are you interested in becoming a soldier, then?
Well I can't speak for him, but I'll tell you why I joined. I wasn't interested in the money, or the scholarships, or what have you. No, I joined because I saw (and continue to see) in the military the opportunity to combat a real evil in this world. I'm sure you'll scoff at my use of such a Manichean word, but just as I believe there are nice and wonderful people in this world, I also believe there are truly sinister, thuggish, and evil people in the world as well.
Prior to the US invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban may well have been the most draconian, brutish, anti-woman, and downright evil organized government in the world. They certainly gave North Korea a run for the money at least. And now, they are determined to come back into power. It is only because of Orwell's "violent, rough men," that they are blocked from achieving that total victory right now.
Al-Qaeda, as we saw in Iraq, was of the same ilk. The Taliban throws acid into young girls' faces for going to school. Al-Qaeda chops off your fingers for smoking. The Taliban cuts off peoples' noses and ears for voting. Al-Qaeda straps bombs to mentally retarded women and sends them into the marketplace.
I've heard estimates that we and our primary allies of the Anglo-sphere have killed upwards of 50,000 insurgents/terrorists/jihadists. That's good in my opinion. Evil men need to be shown the price of their thuggery. By the end of WWII, Nazism was shown to be illegitimate because the price of Nazism had literally become certain death for all the soldiers and leaders of the movement. The same thing needs to happen to the jihadist ideology.
These are the reasons I joined the Army. So that I can devote myself to fighting these kinds of people. Whatever your thoughts on the rightness or wrongness of invasions past, these are hardly the upstanding statesmen we need to fill the vacuum once we leave.
You seen any buildings blown up roundabout here lately? I'm not saying that it doesn't suck that innocent people died. And, I'm certainly not saying that we're worth more than them. But, it's a war. You fight to preserve your way of life, and in this case, to stay alive. I'm not about to let some extremist with the sole intent to kill me, my countrymen, or any body solely because of the misguided teachings of some whacked out cleric carry out his purpose. I'm not going to let someone forcibly convert people to Fundementalist (and skewered) Islam solely because I won't fight. Hell with that. You threaten my country, and my way of life, I will use the boot.
When I see logic just like this, basically "well it's too bad that innocent people get killed, but we're protecting our way of life" that says to me "yes, our lives are worth more than theirs".
When I see logic just like this, basically "well it's too bad that innocent people get killed, but we're protecting our way of life" that says to me "yes, our lives are worth more than theirs".
It's not about the worth of the life. You want to be free, you gotta fight for that freedom. Yes, innocent people get killed. Yes, it sucks. Yes, I wish it was avoidable. It's not though.
It's not about the worth of the life. You want to be free, you gotta fight for that freedom. Yes, innocent people get killed. Yes, it sucks. Yes, I wish it was avoidable. It's not though.
The great flaw in this logic however is that the United States is not fighting for it's freedom. Hasn't since the 1800's.
Ummm.... Pearl Harbor? U.S.S. Cole? Lebanon? World Trade Center? Have you missed Bin Laden's "Death to America" spiels?
In not a single one of those examples has American sovereignty been at stake. Try to think beyond the nationalistic drivel that our politicians and media spout.
In not a single one of those examples has American sovereignty been at stake. Try to think beyond the nationalistic drivel that our politicians and media spout.
Sorry this took so long; boot camp, Afghanistan and all that.
Seriously? Your freakin' joking. A ship gets blown up. A US NAVY ship. A MARINE CORPS BARRACKS gets blown up. THE WORLD TRADE CENTER? You mean to tell me that, even indirectly, those were not threats to American sovereignty. Well, I suppose you are right. They don't want our sovereignty. They want us DEAD. You ever been to Afghanistan? Served in the military?
Well I can't speak for him, but I'll tell you why I joined. I wasn't interested in the money, or the scholarships, or what have you. No, I joined because I saw (and continue to see) in the military the opportunity to combat a real evil in this world. I'm sure you'll scoff at my use of such a Manichean word, but just as I believe there are nice and wonderful people in this world, I also believe there are truly sinister, thuggish, and evil people in the world as well.
Prior to the US invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban may well have been the most draconian, brutish, anti-woman, and downright evil organized government in the world. They certainly gave North Korea a run for the money at least. And now, they are determined to come back into power. It is only because of Orwell's "violent, rough men," that they are blocked from achieving that total victory right now.
Al-Qaeda, as we saw in Iraq, was of the same ilk. The Taliban throws acid into young girls' faces for going to school. Al-Qaeda chops off your fingers for smoking. The Taliban cuts off peoples' noses and ears for voting. Al-Qaeda straps bombs to mentally retarded women and sends them into the marketplace.
I've heard estimates that we and our primary allies of the Anglo-sphere have killed upwards of 50,000 insurgents/terrorists/jihadists. That's good in my opinion. Evil men need to be shown the price of their thuggery. By the end of WWII, Nazism was shown to be illegitimate because the price of Nazism had literally become certain death for all the soldiers and leaders of the movement. The same thing needs to happen to the jihadist ideology.
These are the reasons I joined the Army. So that I can devote myself to fighting these kinds of people. Whatever your thoughts on the rightness or wrongness of invasions past, these are hardly the upstanding statesmen we need to fill the vacuum once we leave.
I agree with you and that was why I became an 11B when I was in the Army. About the Nazis I highly recommend reading Mein Kampf. It really shows Hitler's intent for Europe and the United States.
"I want to make it clear, however, that although I am deeply opposed to war, I am not advocating appeasement. It is often necessary to take a strong stand to counter unjust aggression. For instance, it is plain to all of us that the Second World War was entirely justified. It "saved civilization" from the tyranny of Nazi Germany, as Winston Churchill so aptly put it. In my view, the Korean War was also just, since it gave South Korea the chance of gradually developing democracy."
Seriously? Your freakin' joking. A ship gets blown up. A US NAVY ship. A MARINE CORPS BARRACKS gets blown up. THE WORLD TRADE CENTER? You mean to tell me that, even indirectly, those were not threats to American sovereignty. Well, I suppose you are right. They don't want our sovereignty. They want us DEAD. You ever been to Afghanistan? Served in the military?
I have served in the military, just for the record. But seriously? Threats to American sovereignty? Not a chance. Acts of terrorism against the American military in places where there's a *really* good argument we have no real reason to be in the first place? You bet. Did blowing up the USS Cole threaten Dubuque Iowa in any way? How about Laredo Texas? Don't think so. World Trade Center? Well, Americans died on American soil. 3000 people died. How many Iraqis and Afghans have died since? Even with 3000 people dead on American soil, did that seriously threaten anybody in Lakeland Florida? In Kalamazoo Michigan? In Kotzebue Alaska? I don't think so.
As almost any Buddhist text will tell you, violence begets violence. War begets war. It doesn't matter who started it or why. Continuing it only means more people die and more suffering is created. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and suddenly the whole world is blind and toothless. I'm with HHDL - appeasement is not what I advocate. Sometimes (like in WWII and Korea) you do have to stand up and say NO to tyranny and oppression. But until and unless we (the US) start really, deeply, honestly looking at why so many people so viscerally hate us - and then start doing something to change that - nothing is going to change. They don't "hate our freedom" as George Bush so ineloquently put it. They hate us because of what we've done and what we continue to do in places in the world where we really have no pressing business. As long as our addiction to oil, and thus to power politics continues unabated, we'll keep meddling in areas like the Persian Gulf and elsewhere, and we'll keep creating new generations of people who hate us. Instead of spending trillions on "defense" (what a misused word for offense), if we'd spend a small fraction of that doing some real good in the world, things might change.
Comments
Okay. Clarification. You don't know what justification higher command has. Now, granted, if they're playing in a field, tra-lalalalalin', then yeah, that's unjustified on multiple levels. But, my thoughts, opinions and actions would differ from the average citizen in that time and area. There'd already been years of propaganda put forth to say that these people are less than you. If you're told for years that someone is less than you, eventually you get desensitized to the plight, then it's just like killing an animal.
Ask the servicemen if he is. Bet you'll get the answer in the affirmative from the average servicemen.
It's not pointless to the servicemen though. It has purpose and justification.
Yeah, special operations are a pain in the ass, though. Especially when you can't find the guy, and he's in a moutainous country with lots of caves to hide in. Not to mention neighboring countries.
I find the suggestion that His Majesty's Government in 1939 (of which Mr Churchill was not a member) had responsibility for the deaths in the camps both insulting and objectionable. It also has absolutely nothing to do with the OP.
You still have not answered my question. So I'll restate it: Would you dutifully follow an order that you knew to be illegal or in violation of the rules of war? Would you willingly follow an order that went against your morals? If ordered to slaughter a group of innocent people would you do so?
I have. One of my best friends since childhood has been serving in the Army since 2000. Going by the conversations we've I don't think he'd agree with you on ether point there.
And the ground invasion has been a better strategy?
That would never work. One of those things that looks great on paper, but, yeah. Such things aren't feasible. Especially against an enemy with so much military power that fights so damned well. Plus, once Britian was in the war, they were getting their asses handed to them by the Nazis. That is not an enemy you can fight with "support". They were too well organized, too efficient, and too advanced militarily. Especially with the crap they were throwin' down range. And if you want to look at it from this point of view, the world was in a depression. What better way to get out of a depression than revving up the factories for a war? Production booms, dollar value rockets, you're good.
I wouldn't. But, what I would or wouldn't do is the result of living in a country, time, and society where racial discrimination is not the norm. Therefore, my response would be vastly different from a 19 year old Nazi wanting to protect The Fatherland.
There's the issue. A childhood friend. A friend is often someone who shares a common set of values. And, besides, he's not representative of the majority, unless of course he's set out to survey the vast majority of servicemembers and gotten the same response.
Okay. Consider this. Army SF typically operates in 12 man teams. How long would it take, say, twenty teams, to find a single man in an entire mountain chain full of caves and caverns. And, hey, I believe that good's being done in the meantime. Off the Taliban, build some schools, help some kids, get some education goin'. Good to go. But, I'll be honest. I blame, largely, the media. More often than not, you see things like this: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.battlespaceonline.org/peter-van-agtmael/ana-soldier-airlifted-wounded-in-ied-attack-afghanistan-2007.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.battlespaceonline.org/peter-van-agtmael/memorial-service-for-american-soldier-killed-by-ied-iraq-2006.shtml&usg=__wnbtVNUjVSzVC6WVxP6sWPjT6Mc=&h=483&w=721&sz=88&hl=en&start=2&tbnid=1FAwWWrSbRniwM:&tbnh=94&tbnw=140&prev=/images%3Fq%3DAfghanistan%2BIED%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26rlz%3D1T4DKUS_enUS272US272
How often do you see this on the news? http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.25idl.army.mil/Deployment/OEF%2520Afghanistan/Deployment/Big/OEF%2520Nov02_2004%2520Halloween%2520Toy%2520Giveaway02.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.25idl.army.mil/Deployment/OEF%2520Afghanistan/Deployment/15Nov04pictures.htm&usg=__lp0kFG1QYEK30rNi8m_C2xcacRw=&h=1700&w=1281&sz=358&hl=en&start=158&tbnid=5lzMr3LOcWMoXM:&tbnh=150&tbnw=113&prev=/images%3Fq%3DAfghanistan%2Bchildren%2Bsoldiers%2Btoys%26ndsp%3D18%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26rlz%3D1T4DKUS_enUS272US272%26sa%3DN%26start%3D144
I suggest you read a history book.
Oh, not like the Russians, you mean?
They suffered setbacks in conventional warfare. An occupation struggling against a resourceful guerilla campaign is a different matter.
When I spoke of cost, I wasn't talking about finance. Are you seriously weighing the subsequent uptick in US financial strength against the deaths of 20 million people?
So then you agree that a soldier's role isn't necessarily to blindly follow any order given?
So you tell me to "ask a serviceman" and I state that I have and somehow this is invalid because of the particular relationship between me and the serviceman in question? That's kind of changing the "rules" as you go along isn't it?
How has the ground invasion been anymore successful in achieving our goal in Afghanistan, that being to apprehend Osama bin Ladin? Well, at least that was the goal until Bush decided that it wasn't after all once it became clear that bin Ladin had outwitted us.
I've read plenty of history books, my friend. Many, many history books.
We tried the whole supply them financially and militarily approach. Vietnam. Didn't end so well.
France. 'Nough Said. There's your guerilla warfare campaign. Didn't work out so well. The French Resistance was absolutely vital in stopping the Third Reich, but they couldn't have done it by themselves. And, had Britian not stepped up, how long do you think it would have been before Hitler took all of Europe. Then started on Asia.
No, I'm not saying that those deaths aren't tragic. Trust me, I know they are. But, how else do you expect to be free? Like it or not, warfare is necessary. Fighting is necessary.
It's not, but, again, look at the individual. I believe that it would be wrong. But, according to the Nazi regime, and what someone in that place would believe, they were acting in the right. Right and wrong is dependent on the society.
No, I said the average. The average isn't an individual. The rules haven't changed.
Hey, man, you want some Taliban jerk-off runnin' around, taking MORE lives. And, that wasn't the only goal. The goal is to defend against Terrorism. Kind of what we're doin'. But, to answer the question, haven't made terrific strides. But, as far as the other goals... protecting the American people, all that jazz, yeah, we're getting pretty far.
So do you believe that the actions of those in the Nazi regime are excused because they were simply following orders?
I have no more reason to believe that your view represents the average than his.
How exactly have we defended against terrorism and how exactly have the American people been protected these last few years? And what exactly makes us worth more than the innocent lives we've destroyed with these campaigns?
Actually, Vietnam is a perfect example of proxy guerilla war driving out an illegitimate occupier (the US, and France before that.)
This is so backwards. First of all, Germany didn't invade France until Britain had been bombing and blockading German territory for months. The country was already on a total war footing, and had good reason to believe that if it backed down, it would face terms commensurate with those of the Treaty of Versailles. It took France as a defensive move. The point of the kind of guerilla war I'm talking about is to convince the occupier that their imperialism is not economically viable. It's not going to work if they regard the occupation as a matter of survival.
I agree. I'm just saying people resort to it far more than they actually need to, with far more gusto than is warranted, and with tragic ignorance for the true costs.
I'm not trying to excuse them. I'm saying why a lowly private, or whatever they call them, would do those things. I can't pardon their actions anymore than they can pradon mine.
And I have no reason to believe that his viewpoint represents the average.
You seen any buildings blown up roundabout here lately? I'm not saying that it doesn't suck that innocent people died. And, I'm certainly not saying that we're worth more than them. But, it's a war. You fight to preserve your way of life, and in this case, to stay alive. I'm not about to let some extremist with the sole intent to kill me, my countrymen, or any body solely because of the misguided teachings of some whacked out cleric carry out his purpose. I'm not going to let someone forcibly convert people to Fundementalist (and skewered) Islam solely because I won't fight. Hell with that. You threaten my country, and my way of life, I will use the boot.
Vietnam was a matter of trying to prevent Communism from spreading. The Communist North, and the Democratic South.
Guerilla warfare doesn't always convince an occupier that they have to leave. It can actually do just the opposite. It can strengthen the resolve of the invading nation.
I couldn't agree with that more. It's generally a first resort rather than a last.
Well I can't speak for him, but I'll tell you why I joined. I wasn't interested in the money, or the scholarships, or what have you. No, I joined because I saw (and continue to see) in the military the opportunity to combat a real evil in this world. I'm sure you'll scoff at my use of such a Manichean word, but just as I believe there are nice and wonderful people in this world, I also believe there are truly sinister, thuggish, and evil people in the world as well.
Prior to the US invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban may well have been the most draconian, brutish, anti-woman, and downright evil organized government in the world. They certainly gave North Korea a run for the money at least. And now, they are determined to come back into power. It is only because of Orwell's "violent, rough men," that they are blocked from achieving that total victory right now.
Al-Qaeda, as we saw in Iraq, was of the same ilk. The Taliban throws acid into young girls' faces for going to school. Al-Qaeda chops off your fingers for smoking. The Taliban cuts off peoples' noses and ears for voting. Al-Qaeda straps bombs to mentally retarded women and sends them into the marketplace.
I've heard estimates that we and our primary allies of the Anglo-sphere have killed upwards of 50,000 insurgents/terrorists/jihadists. That's good in my opinion. Evil men need to be shown the price of their thuggery. By the end of WWII, Nazism was shown to be illegitimate because the price of Nazism had literally become certain death for all the soldiers and leaders of the movement. The same thing needs to happen to the jihadist ideology.
These are the reasons I joined the Army. So that I can devote myself to fighting these kinds of people. Whatever your thoughts on the rightness or wrongness of invasions past, these are hardly the upstanding statesmen we need to fill the vacuum once we leave.
When I see logic just like this, basically "well it's too bad that innocent people get killed, but we're protecting our way of life" that says to me "yes, our lives are worth more than theirs".
It's like my grandpa told me and my brother when we were little: the bad guys've gotta be stopped.
It's not about the worth of the life. You want to be free, you gotta fight for that freedom. Yes, innocent people get killed. Yes, it sucks. Yes, I wish it was avoidable. It's not though.
The great flaw in this logic however is that the United States is not fighting for it's freedom. Hasn't since the 1800's.
Ummm.... Pearl Harbor? U.S.S. Cole? Lebanon? World Trade Center? Have you missed Bin Laden's "Death to America" spiels?
In not a single one of those examples has American sovereignty been at stake. Try to think beyond the nationalistic drivel that our politicians and media spout.
Seriously? Your freakin' joking. A ship gets blown up. A US NAVY ship. A MARINE CORPS BARRACKS gets blown up. THE WORLD TRADE CENTER? You mean to tell me that, even indirectly, those were not threats to American sovereignty. Well, I suppose you are right. They don't want our sovereignty. They want us DEAD. You ever been to Afghanistan? Served in the military?
I agree with you and that was why I became an 11B when I was in the Army. About the Nazis I highly recommend reading Mein Kampf. It really shows Hitler's intent for Europe and the United States.
"I want to make it clear, however, that although I am deeply opposed to war, I am not advocating appeasement. It is often necessary to take a strong stand to counter unjust aggression. For instance, it is plain to all of us that the Second World War was entirely justified. It "saved civilization" from the tyranny of Nazi Germany, as Winston Churchill so aptly put it. In my view, the Korean War was also just, since it gave South Korea the chance of gradually developing democracy."
http://www.dalailama.com/messages/world-peace/the-reality-of-war
I have served in the military, just for the record. But seriously? Threats to American sovereignty? Not a chance. Acts of terrorism against the American military in places where there's a *really* good argument we have no real reason to be in the first place? You bet. Did blowing up the USS Cole threaten Dubuque Iowa in any way? How about Laredo Texas? Don't think so. World Trade Center? Well, Americans died on American soil. 3000 people died. How many Iraqis and Afghans have died since? Even with 3000 people dead on American soil, did that seriously threaten anybody in Lakeland Florida? In Kalamazoo Michigan? In Kotzebue Alaska? I don't think so.
As almost any Buddhist text will tell you, violence begets violence. War begets war. It doesn't matter who started it or why. Continuing it only means more people die and more suffering is created. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and suddenly the whole world is blind and toothless. I'm with HHDL - appeasement is not what I advocate. Sometimes (like in WWII and Korea) you do have to stand up and say NO to tyranny and oppression. But until and unless we (the US) start really, deeply, honestly looking at why so many people so viscerally hate us - and then start doing something to change that - nothing is going to change. They don't "hate our freedom" as George Bush so ineloquently put it. They hate us because of what we've done and what we continue to do in places in the world where we really have no pressing business. As long as our addiction to oil, and thus to power politics continues unabated, we'll keep meddling in areas like the Persian Gulf and elsewhere, and we'll keep creating new generations of people who hate us. Instead of spending trillions on "defense" (what a misused word for offense), if we'd spend a small fraction of that doing some real good in the world, things might change.
Soapbox mode = OFF
Mtns