Political You-Tube video with more votes than any other

Remove all ads!

I don't agree with that statement. Most of the soldiers and sailors I know (and knew) spent more time helping others than fighting. Every time we went into a port we did a community project to help the city or town. I think the military members spend much more time "doing good."

One of the primary concerns of an all volunteer force is the members will not fight. It's just a fact for the military to know and understand this. As such, facing a unknown enemy is not in the best interest of the military -- people just simply won't shoot unless they have a reason. And the reasons have to make sense to the person. If a commander asks his troops to kill someone he realizes this is an act against everything that person was taught their entire life. That ethic (not killing) doesn't just "go away" in boot camp -- I think you're an example of that.

Yes, in the US military the men and women are taught to follow orders. They are also taught a system of ethics (for the naval services those are honor, courage, and commitment) and they are expected to use those ethics in decision making.

I think most people just want to believe the military is an unthinking automaton of destruction. In reality it is made of men and women with the same values and ethics as anyone else.

 

I've largely stayed out of this topic, but I would like to point out that while I do not agree with joacquin, I understand what he's trying to say. If you accept his central premise that the main purpose of the military is to kill and destroy, then the conlcusions he draws from that premise logically follow. To him, the fact that the military also does good things is immaterial, because there are organizaitons out there also capable of these things (like the Red Cross and Peace Corps) that are not associated with the military. His point concerns the military-unique abilities of the military.

Now, you are free to disagree with his central premise (as I do), or say that his central premise is faulty. In such a case you also will disagree with the conclusions he draws from this premise. But in that regard, it's just like any other arguement - if you don't agree with the starting point, you also won't like the conclusions drawn from it. However, if you agree with where he is starting from, you'll also probably agree with his overall opinion.

 

As long as there is one person who is willing to use force to achieve his goals at the expense of others, other people will need to take steps to protect themselves. When many people are willing to use force, then it becomes necessary for others to band together and oppose force with force when there is no other option.

I once felt more like joacqin does. I believed that if you were reasonable, fair, and a decent person, you could reason with anyone. My experiences in Japan cured me of that delusion. I worked with one of the biggest buttholes on the planet (incidentally a US soldier.) There was no reasoning with or discussion with that bastard -- God knows I tried.

I still understand where joacqin is coming from. A lot of soldiers are utter pricks who join up for an excuse to be violent pieces of excrement. But I also believe that there are many soldiers who join because they genuinely wish to help others -- and sometimes helping others means using violence on their behalf.

 

The reasons people join are somewhat varied. The reasons they stay, though, are less varied. When serving, you needn't worry about health insurance, because you get it for free. You needn't worry about whether or not you'll have a job tomorrow, because if you've screwed up badly enough to get discharged, you probably have bigger things to worry about then losing your job (like, say, prison). You get a guaranteed pension (which is almost unheard of nowadays) if you serve at least 20 years. While on active duty, they'll pay for 75% of your tuition for college and they'll give you GI Bill. Unless you royally screw things up, you're guaranteed to get promoted at least every couple years. Even if you don't get promoted (because you're a chronic ****-up or you've been promoted as far as you can go already) you are still guaranteed a cost of living pay-raise every year (during the budget battles between Newt and Bill, the military missed that raise one year, but got more than double that raise the next year to make up for it) and a time in service pay-raise every 2 years. You won't get rich serving (well, an officer could), but the US military is one of the most stable and dependable employers in the world. That stability is the reason most people stay.

 

Drew has hit a lot of it square on the head. You really have to be a screw-up for the military not to be able to find a proper place for you.

 

If we go back to basics and the reason for why I got involved in this topic in the first place I am going to try to pull my point back from philosophy and into the real world. I reacted because DR, a staunch anti-war person, felt the need to put a soldier fighting a war on a pedestal and almost apologicing for disagreeing with him. Same with all the "I don't support the war but I support the troops" sentiments going around. If you disagree with the cause for a war or a struggle how can you then respect and admire the people fighting it? That is what my first and most basic point here was. Do you respect and admire terrorists because they are willing to fight for what they believe in and serve their cause selflessy? No, because you disagree with the cause. If you then disagree with the use American soldiers are put why then this need to still again and again announce that you support and respect them? To call them heroes when they are using force and fighting for a cause you do not believe in and do not agree with?

I can see how you can admire and respect soldiers fighting for a cause you believe in but to do so when they fight for what you believe is wrong? That is what got me started here. The rest is mostly just philosophy.

 

Easilly. Soldiers don't get to pass on wars that don't interest them, so the fact that you don't agree with the war they are fighting shouldn't be held against them, especially considering that the soldier himself may not support the war.

Respect? Yes. Admire? Well...no...but I don't admire soldiers just for being soldiers, either.

They are called heroes by many (personally, I think the term is bandied about far too often, and that doing so effectively cheapens the very real and very compelling heroism of men like Michael P Murphy) not because of who they fight or why they fight, but because they chose to sacrifice their safety and well-being for the sake of the nation. The vast majority of our soldiers did not expect to go to war when they entered the military. They certainly didn't expect to enter an unjust and illegal war. They swore an oath to protect Americans from real and legitimate threats, and they trusted our president and our legislature to deploy them appropriately. The fact that our president and our legislature abused that oath does not lessen their sacrifice in any way.

 

Joacqin, you seem to be dependant on this caricature of the US soldier as either a blathering idiot or a complete sociopath (and I use that term in the clinical sense). Neither of these are true. The first wouldn't advance any further than private and the second wouldn't be allowed in in the first place. Yes, the military trains for agression, but they also train for restraint, calmness under pressure, clear thought, and a great many other attributes.

I also vastly disagree with your 'central premise', as Aldeth put it, because destruction and killing are not the primary purpose of the military, but rather the primary tool of the military. There is a great difference between the two.

I also think a great deal of our disagreement still resides in your apparent indifference to the reasons behind killing. You still seem to believe that there is no real good or evil in the world, except perhaps killing itself. This is, on it's face, an untennalbe position/

As for the respect given to soldiers, I'll agree that there should be more discression exercized than usually is. Not all soldiers are inherrantly worthy of respect, honor, or admiration. Many of them are, though. Many of them are because of their actions, and many more are because of the training they recieved (i.e. the part about self-restraint, calmness under pressure, etc.). With all that said, the soldier in the video demonstrated many of these attributes, and I think he is worthy of some level of respect.

Even if you disagree with the war in Iraq, even if you believe it was not necessary, even if you believe it was economically and politically foolish, you have to admit they've done a lot of good in there. Remember what these people were living under before we came there. Remember how frequently those interviewed on the streets of Iraqi cities say they are happy the US came. If you disagree with the war on a flatly ethical basis, we have a vaster disagreement than Iraq or the respect for soldiers here.

 

Both NOG and Drew made excellent points.

Respect? Any fighting man who does not respect Osama Bin Laden is ignorant. Bin Laden led poorly equiped, barely trained men against the most powerful army in the world -- and survived. He should have been our ally, but we (the US and the free world in general) turned our backs on him and the people he fought for. His accomplishments against the Soviet Army should impress anyone. He is a "worthy opponent" and a man to be respected -- even feared. The men and women he leads are also quite worthy of our respect. I don't agree with his philosophy, nor do I agree with his methods -- I think many of his techniques are cowardly. But I certainly admire the commitment of Bin Laden and the people who follow him.

But you're right. I don't admire people when I can't agree with their cause. Whether a person is a hero or a fool is a matter of perspective. There is a fundamental issue of perspective that I think you may not see about the Iraq war for Americans:

The reasons Bush gave for going into Iraq were wrong. Which means the reason for starting the war was misleading. However, I don't think anyone feels that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a bad thing (in fact many believe it should have been done the first time around). So while the war was not necessary, it wasn't entirely wrong in the eyes of most Americans.

To say this in another way, most of us who are against the war simply believe the cause was not worth the cost. Going into Iraq was not worth the financial burder, and especially not worth the cost in lives. The reasons were wrong, but the cause (removing a despot) was not unjust. So we're really not against the "cause" our troops are fighting for.

I think the majority of Americans also believe our troops are "doing good" over in Iraq, and "doing good" is a worthy cause -- we just don't think they should ever have been sent in the first place. Yes, there are some soldiers who are committing criminal acts and we condemn those acts. But we respect those soldiers who are helping the people of Iraq.​

Just because Bush took us in an unnecessary war does not diminish the sacrifice of our troops. Their sacrifice is still worthy of respect in our eyes. That Bush unnecessarily forced our friends and family members to sacrifice in this way is a major reason why the country does not hold him in high regard.

 

The focus we have had on American soldiers is because most of the people that have jumped into the discussion have been American and viewed their soldiers in a very positive light while, I assume, they would be more willing to view the soldiers from other countries in a more critical way. We could have been speaking about Russian soldiers in Chechnya or Georgia but I do not think the discussion would have been as vibrant than but my position is the same. With your reasoning you have to respect the choices of all soldiers no matter the cause, with mine you firstly question the entire reason for there being soldiers and put some of the responsibilities in their hands. Sure it isnt the grunt with the rifle that starts the conflict but the fact that he is lending himself as a willing tool enables the "evil" people of the world to commit their vile deeds.

Many of you argue out of a "us and them" perspective, our guys fight for the good so they are needed, the other guys fight for evil so they are evil. It rarely is that simple. I would like to give some more kudos to T2 here, kudos and bafflement, you have obviously given this a lot of thought and consideration and have extremely well thought out opinions here and yet you would be willing to kill for something you might or might not agree with trusting that the people up high have intentions you agree with. It is the same thing as when you come to realization that a guy who believes the musings of a tribal shaman dead 2000 years is core truth of the universe is an intelligent and aware person. For my brain it is a paradox. You do not believe that individuals themselves should be capable of critical thinking even in a service situation? I do assume that most people who joined up during hte build up to the Iraq war agreed with the causes for it, which ever one they used that particular day. Sure the bulk of the blame of any conflict lies on the people that decides but some of that responsibility must fall on the people executing those decisions. I could never join the army as I would then run the risk of risking my life or using force for something I did not believe in. Job security, education and a retirement scheme is not enough for me to risk commiting what in my opinion amounts to little more than murder.

I would like to repeat again the point that there wouldnt be a need for anyone to serve and fight for the good cause if there were no people willing to serve and fight for the good cause.

 

And this is exactly where you miss the point. When it comes to war, the only choice a soldier makes is the choice he made to join the Army...assuming he wasn't conscripted instead. He doesn't get to decide which wars he will fight and which wars he will not.

 

Thank-you, joacqin. I think most career military personnel have given this a lot of thought. The first enlistment or period of service is all about the training, the job, or the fun of travel. At some point you realize that you are a weapon -- and a deadly one at that (I'm using "you" metaphorically here). Whether you deliver the bullets to the shooters, direct the shooters, or actually do the shooting -- you are a part of that weapon. And an intelligent person must reconcile the distinct possibility you will be called upon to kill someone, or even die in action. I would not trust a leader who has not done such soul searching.

I remember talking to a POW once. He said two types of people made it through as POW's with their integrity intact. One was the ignorant, loyal soldier -- the guy who would never believe the US would ever do anything wrong. This type of guy would deny any wrong and believe the horror picture from actual attacks were pure propaganda and lies. The other type that made it through were those who understood the horrors of war and the dreadful things they had done for the US. They accepted the cause and understood the damage they caused. The idealists did not fair so well in POW camps.

As I said before, it would be wonderful if the world were full of Ghandi's, but I just don't believe we will ever reach that point.

 

Guys c'mon, do you find it at all surprising that the world hates the USA?
Can't believe I haven't read this thread till now... in the beginning joacqin practically got mobbed by warhawks, as if the original video isn't infuriating enough. You people use self-righteous ideals to justify taking innocent people's lives. And these ideals are false, they can all be disproven.
* USA does not represent Peace: Do I even need to go into the military-industrial side?
* Neither does it stand for Freedom: The homeless aren't free to walk the streets. USgov't loves nothing more than to take away civil rights "for your safety".
* Or Human Rights: How should I illustrate USA's infringement of human rights? So many avenues to explore. I don't want to make the post too long though.
* It doesn't stand for Safety either: Continual wars, mass gun ownership, a deliberately impoverished lower class, and false flag acts of terrorism on your own people don't exactly make anyone's lives safer. But it generates mass fear, and fear means easy social change.
* USA can barely be called a Democracy: When the gov't isn't doing what the people want, they just keep going, and create some spin story, or act of terrorism, that persuades the people otherwise.
* Volunteer Army my ass: Army recruiters pressure the most malnourished, uneducated kids to sell off their lives. And those who don't go willingly are subjected to all manners of psychological manipulation, the recruiters only stop when they reach their quota. I'm a 'sleeping' reserve; because I studied, I wasn't called for duty. If I were to be called to go to Iraq suddenly, then I could simply say that I have severe moral objections. Which I do. I doubt that the guy who made this video was some poor low-ranking private. He looks like a thick-necked bar brawler, and I bet he derives great pleasure and satisfaction from killing.

If you lay dying on the battlefield, and assuming you have the presence of mind (that does require a level of awareness some people never achieve) to think about your life up until then, what would you be thinking?

Warhawks, I won't take the bait, and insult your soldiers or ancestors. But I will say that they are/were no sweethearts, and don't deserve to become sacrisanct. Muslim extremists never really threatened you, and your 'heroes' haven't protected you from them, or even reduced their numbers. If you decide to take insult, based on insults that you laid the bait for, then know that you are actively diluding yourself.
What's the point of this argument? You're not going to be persuaded that your government does anything other than for morally clean goals. It's exactly the same as a religious debate: Mohammed coming down from the skies on a flying horse is ridiculous, but burning bushes and cutting up fish into itty-bitty bits are miracles.
Nationalist fervour is really really really really scary.

 

That message was brought to you by the guy that thinks the USA brought down the twin towers in NY
Remember coin, that's only a day-pass, you need to go back to the sanitarium now.

 

welcome back martaug, did they let you back in the alleys again?

Did your week's vacation make you calm down already? Are you happy, now you've fired all your employees who voted democrat?

 

Drew's example of a hero is a good one (to me), Michael Murphy sacrificing himself in order to help save his squad should not ever be seen as anything less than admirable. However, he did inspire the worst workout known to man, which is not as admirable (for those who want it brief, 1mile, 100 pull-ups, 200 push-ups, 300 air squats, 1 mile- with the middle parts done in any order or sections).

As Drew gave an example of what he feels a hero is, I'll give one too. This hits home as he is from my little burgh of 1,000 people, but this man should be admired by all. Taking 18 bullets so your company can get away, is an example of heroism. Shooting up 18 Iraqis, or Georgians, or Russians isn't.

I don't want to get to involved here, as I'd likely just be an echo to what most (T2, Drew, LKD) are saying... and that is a good thing, since I find them to be most sensible right now.

I think you will find few people who are completely opposed to that belief. The thing is though, the soldiers aren't the ones making the decisions to invade, so you should not hold them responsible if their leaders get a little overzealous.

 

Joacqin, I think you are reading your own opinions into others' posts here. I do not defend US actions that are immoral, such as bombing civilian targets, murdering civilians, or wars to depose legitimate gov'ts that just don't like us (Vietnam), and I don't think anyone here would. To the point of the soldiers, I generally agree with Drew, with the exception that there is also the choice to obey illegal orders or refuse them. This was brought to mind last night when I was watching Doom (I know, but it was on). The commander in charge of the troop has decided to kill all the scientists, just in case a few more are infected, despite an obvious way to determine if they are infected or not. When his youngest new recruit refuses to follow the order to slaughter innocent women and children, he shoots the kid in the head. At this point, I'm thinking, 'Now is when you point your gun at his head and tell him to drop his weapon. If he doesn't, you shoot him.' His orders were blatantly illegal and immoral.

Most soldiers will never encounter that situation.

You don't get to decide to participate in a war because you think it's worth it or not, and you don't get to decide whether or not to follow orders that you think aren't the best tactics at the moment.

coineineagh:
You were showing hints of delusional paranoia in the topic on the towers, now you're doing so again.

Debatable, but I'll give you it for arguement's sake. The US doesn't represent peace any more than any other developed nation today, maybe less than some.

Here, you're just plain wrong. I don't know where you get your info, but the homeless aren't banned from public property, and the US ensures more freedoms for it's populace than most developed nations do today. Maybe not more than all, I'm no expert, but we're at least high on the list.

Ok, if you're talking about business in other countries, in which case you aren't talking about the US so much as you are businesses that, these days, are based nowhere and everywhere, then ok. If you're actually talking about the US, then again, I have no idea where you get your info. Just like freedoms, we may not be the top, but we're in thin air at least.

Aside from the delusional conspiracy theories of Gov't terrorism and this 'deliberately impoverished' lower class, you're again way off. 'Continual wars' in far away lands, usually using an all-volunteer military, usually in 'peace-keeping' actions, and generally against woefully inadiquate forces (aside from Iraq and Afghanistan, the most recent). That's not terribly dangerous. Mass gun ownership, by itself, means nothing either. Look at the statistics for per capita deaths by murder or accident involving weapons and you'll have some grounds to argue.

... I'm sorry, I know you're not American, but you have to have heard about this guy we just elected Pres. I don't really like him, but one thing he isn't is the kind of political establishment the NWO conspiracy nuts cry about.

Again, I'm not sure where you get your info, but this is way off. Yes, they employ a little legitimate psychological pressure, but that's generally called 'convincing' and still constitutes volunteer. Also, be fair, they have a lot to convince with: payed tuition to college, a pseudo-college equivalent education (many employers hire straight out of the military regardless of college degrees), food, shelter, better benefits than just about anyone, good pay, the like. If you call that 'psychological manipulation' then I guess I'm using 'psychological manipulation' to persuade you otherwise. Is it working?

Ok, you're right in that most of our soldiers aren't sweethearts, but I don't remember anyone saying, or even hinting, that they were. They're killers, no doubt, but generally of the good variety. No threat from Muslim extremists? Do you know anything about recent history? Or do you think Osama bin Laden and all his history (long before 9/11) are also a US gov't conspiracy?

That only works if you think standing by a window in peaceful suburbia is laying bait for someone to start firing rockets at you. You've drawn out the most ridiculous claims here, backed them with nothing but claims of a conspiracy and the all-powerful government, and now you claim we've laid the bait for it?

Oh, and by the way, if you're in the US military, the term isn't 'sleeper', it's 'reservist', as in, you're in the Army Reserve (another all-volunteer group).

Coineineagh, I'm not trying to be insulting here (though I imagine I did probably achieve it), I'm just trying to shock you back to reality. Most of the things you've posted here really are paranoid delusions sold as conspiracy theories. I'm not kidding here, they have no bearing on reality at all.

Ok, and just to clear this up:

Someone coming down from the sky on a flying horse isn't ridiculous, not so long as you believe in any kind of god other than yourself. We Christians believe Mohammed doing so is wrong, as in factually wrong, but it's not ridiculous. Also, the point of the burning bush was that it didn't actually burn up, and the miracle of the fish was feeding thousands with a few fish and a little bread. I don't care how small the pieces are, that's impressive.

 

paranoid conspiracy nut got another day-pass

Here we go again: I'm paranoid delusional, argument won, case dismissed.

I managed to finish a master study at a respectable university despite a debilitating mental disorder. And I see social workers almost every day at work, but none of them mention that I need help.

The USA has been involved in every major conflict of the past century, most of them directly. That has to be the result of war industry.

I dug up an old post to reply to that one. It's better that an American offer counterargument, don't you agree?

I wasn't even thinking about companies, more on the lines of torture, police brutality, unlawful imprisonment. You're mixing up human rights with civil rights, or as america likes to put it: Civil Liberties (as if it's not something we can take for granted, and we should thank America for being allowed to take these 'liberties'). USA is low on the list for employee's rights, that's for damn sure, just ask martaug!
I'm sure that when you have a well-paid lawyer, you're rights are impervious. But those aren't the people who need their civil and human rights protected.

The jury's still out on whether he's gonna do anything good at all. This distant cousin of Bush's may just be a token president to appease minorities and turn out to be a big disappointment, or he may already be knee-deep in underhanded deals with shady lobbyists. If he actively stalls impeachment procedures for the Bush administration, then I think we'll all know what the deal is... Curse my active imagination, maybe I am paranoid. Or maybe I'm thinking outside-the-box?

Take a guess.

Forgetting about 'Thou shalt not kill' again, NOG? How convenient of you. Of course, this is just a bible slogan intended to inspire people, as it is otherwise meaningless. The bible makes it very clear that thou shalt most definitely kill in a gruesome fashion, for the stupidest of reasons, and take great pleasure and gratification in the fact that you're doing God's work.
Let me summarize what I believe: Killing is wrong. Only in very rare moral dilemmas can it even be considered as a morally gray solution to a problem. And not soldiers, nor their superiors have ever put enough philosophical thought into it. Naturally, the people who are killed in war are not deserving of such injustice. In ancient times, not joining the army would mean your home was burnt, and your family exiled. But with a 'volunteer army', there are no such extenuating circumstances. Ignorance is no excuse, and killers and their superiors share the blame for their war crimes.

What you call paranoia, I call healthy skepticism. What you call appealing to common sense, I'd call indoctrination (USA good) and inside-the-box thinking. All a matter of perpective. You can't 'shock' me back into reality unfortunately, since we are both experiencing reality through our individual perspectives. You are arrogant to assume that yours is exactly like reality, or even close. It will most likely be that the truth is somewhere between our two accounts of it. And I bet you'd be surprised how much closer it is to mine than you thought.

I'm getting a mental picture: Wow, that must have been some feast!

 

coineineagh: joacqin argued based on an ideal. Your arguments are based on half-truths and misconceptions. Most of your points could be said of any of a number of nations, to point a finger at the US is rather hypocritical. The quote you posted was just the typical anti-war/anti-US propaganda -- a waste of time.

This comment:

is, without a doubt, the most callous and self-righteous thing I've ever seen on the boards. To attack a disabled person is just cowardly.

 

What the hell are you talking about man?! I didn't know he's disabled, he sure didn't look it in the video. If he said he is, i must've missed it.
But YOU, making me out to be bashing cripples now, is just pathetic. Can you stop with the ridiculous fallacies? Trying to shame me into silence, sheesh... Did they teach you that sanctimonious victimisation at church? Your debating tactics in my 911 thread were a lot better, I must say.

It's true that you can say a lot of the same things of most countries, but the US military is disproportionately involved in conflicts around the world, and has been for a long time. It's hard to keep calm in the face of such large-scale injustice, so my rants may come across as propaganda. But your opinions are pretty far on the other side of the spectrum.

Like an old thread on the alleys: "Top CIA official confesses order to forge Iraq-9/11 letter came from Whitehouse"
What are the reactions? "OK, but {generic rationalization involving acceptance or denial} so I'm fine with it."
So don't try to tell me that you're even willing to change your unwavering faith in your country. And no, the american people won't rise up in outrage, even if great injustices are admitted!