Alienating Our Military

Zap_Branigan · February 8, 2007, 5:58pm

[quote]PGJ wrote:
JeffR wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Hillary will win (or maybe Edwards) and shit all over our military. They know all this which is why they consistently vote Republican.

I’m still amazed that the some American people vote for those who want to run and hide like rodents at the first sound of an angry Mullah, or some other sack of shit.

Yes. How do you make peace with someone who has no interest in peace? Somehow there needs to be a mentality change in the Middle East. The solution is not military force, but without military force the soulution will never get a chance.

PGJ,

It’s sad that dems and anti-americans do not know how violent and uncertain our own history has been. I think of fighting two wars of Independence and 600,000 plus dead in our Civil War.

You hear the slobbering about “un-winnable war in Iraq.” Worse, “they don’t want freedom.”

Bull. I remember reading about the slobbers’ ancestors saying the same thing in 1777, 1812, and 1864.

Not to mention the high rate of unforced participation in the three elections in Iraq.

Remember, if france had not economically and militarily intervened, we wouldn’t exist in our present form. If they hadn’t stuck it out while we formed our nation, we wouldn’t exist. If memory serves they declared war on England on July 10th, 1778 and fought through 1783.

We are Iraq’s france.

JeffR

What most people don’t understand also is that this nation was a disaster for many decades after 1776. Even up until the Civil War our nation wasn’t very well organized. But our history books in grade school just kind of stop at the Revolutionary War, skip to the Civil War, then go on to WWII. You get the impression that everything was hunky-dorey, smoothe sailing in between. You don’t hear about the West Virginia Coal Mine War of the early 1900’s, or the New York ethnic gang warfare of the 1800’s, or that part of the Union Army was pulled off the Gettysburg battlefield in 1863 to stop a riot in New York city (2,000+ civilians were killed by the Army in that little riot).

Japan and Germany were complete disasters after WWII. Germany was such a disaster after the Treaty of Versailles that ended WWI that Hitler was able to use it fuel his rise to power and eventually justify starting another war.

History is ugly.

[/quote]

Good post. People analyze todays events with a complete lack of historical perspective. They act as if they expect everything to be resolved in one hour in a fair manner.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS · February 8, 2007, 7:23pm

[quote]PGJ wrote:
Hilary will self-implode. She won’t make it. She is covering up too much stuff. You should hear the HMX-1 guys talk about her (HMX is the Presidential helicopter squadron that flies the President around). She is not a nice, even tempered person. She’d be the one to over-react in a emergency and hit the big red button. She is like that nut-so astronaut lady…one step away from really loosing it. I can’t beleive there is a man in this country who would actually vote for her.

Edwards would be more palatable, but then what the hell has he done? It’s either Hillary or Obama. They’re the rock stars right now.

[/quote]

You are in HMX-1 squadron? I was with VMR-1 for a short while. In fact many HMX guys ended up at VMR-1. I loved drinking with them because they always had good presidential stories.

I don’t want a rock-star I want a good candidate. My hope is that Obama and Hillary screw it up for themsleves and Edwards sweeps it. He’s a decent person or at least he seems decent and humble which is preferable to me than the other options. In fact I’d take someone with no political experience that seemed like a real decent individual.

I agree with you about HC though, she just doesn’t seem right.

Zap_Branigan · February 8, 2007, 7:44pm

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…

I don’t want a rock-star I want a good candidate. My hope is that Obama and Hillary screw it up for themsleves and Edwards sweeps it. He’s a decent person or at least he seems decent and humble which is preferable to me than the other options. In fact I’d take someone with no political experience that seemed like a real decent individual.

I agree with you about HC though, she just doesn’t seem right. [/quote]

Don’t know too much about Edwards but his career as a lawyer bothers me. He allegedly “channeled” dead babies in court during malpractice suits.

Anyone involved in malpractice lawsuits is tainted.

His comments about Christopher Reeves walking today if Kerry was elected really bothered me too.

Bill Richardson?

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS · February 8, 2007, 7:57pm

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…

I don’t want a rock-star I want a good candidate. My hope is that Obama and Hillary screw it up for themsleves and Edwards sweeps it. He’s a decent person or at least he seems decent and humble which is preferable to me than the other options. In fact I’d take someone with no political experience that seemed like a real decent individual.

I agree with you about HC though, she just doesn’t seem right.

Don’t know too much about Edwards but his career as a lawyer bothers me. He allegedly “channeled” dead babies in court during malpractice suits.

Anyone involved in malpractice lawsuits is tainted.

His comments about Christopher Reeves walking today if Kerry was elected really bothered me too.

Bill Richardson?

[/quote]

Yeah, Richardson seems good too. Everytime he speaks he seems not to put his foot in his mouth and doesn’t come across as a typical know-it-all politician.

That’s probably my biggest pet peve about politicians–they should sometimes be able to just be straight with the American public and admit they don’t know when they don’t. I think the American public could be more forgiving if we felt we weren’t constantly being lied to.

I understand one man cannot know everything he might need to know but he should be able to admit it and find someone that can answer the tough questions.

GDollars37 · February 8, 2007, 8:08pm

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
PGJ wrote:
JeffR wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Hillary will win (or maybe Edwards) and shit all over our military. They know all this which is why they consistently vote Republican.

I’m still amazed that the some American people vote for those who want to run and hide like rodents at the first sound of an angry Mullah, or some other sack of shit.

Yes. How do you make peace with someone who has no interest in peace? Somehow there needs to be a mentality change in the Middle East. The solution is not military force, but without military force the soulution will never get a chance.

PGJ,

It’s sad that dems and anti-americans do not know how violent and uncertain our own history has been. I think of fighting two wars of Independence and 600,000 plus dead in our Civil War.

You hear the slobbering about “un-winnable war in Iraq.” Worse, “they don’t want freedom.”

Bull. I remember reading about the slobbers’ ancestors saying the same thing in 1777, 1812, and 1864.

Not to mention the high rate of unforced participation in the three elections in Iraq.

Remember, if france had not economically and militarily intervened, we wouldn’t exist in our present form. If they hadn’t stuck it out while we formed our nation, we wouldn’t exist. If memory serves they declared war on England on July 10th, 1778 and fought through 1783.

We are Iraq’s france.

JeffR

What most people don’t understand also is that this nation was a disaster for many decades after 1776. Even up until the Civil War our nation wasn’t very well organized. But our history books in grade school just kind of stop at the Revolutionary War, skip to the Civil War, then go on to WWII. You get the impression that everything was hunky-dorey, smoothe sailing in between. You don’t hear about the West Virginia Coal Mine War of the early 1900’s, or the New York ethnic gang warfare of the 1800’s, or that part of the Union Army was pulled off the Gettysburg battlefield in 1863 to stop a riot in New York city (2,000+ civilians were killed by the Army in that little riot).

Japan and Germany were complete disasters after WWII. Germany was such a disaster after the Treaty of Versailles that ended WWI that Hitler was able to use it fuel his rise to power and eventually justify starting another war.

History is ugly.

Good post. People analyze todays events with a complete lack of historical perspective. They act as if they expect everything to be resolved in one hour in a fair manner.[/quote]

What you’re saying is true, but the opposite danger is almost as bad, idiotic or consciously deceptive pundits (example: Victor Davis Hanson) using extremely flawed analogies to compare, say, Iraq to WWII, when the two situations couldn’t be farther apart. You see a ton of that in the “conservative” media (the real conservatives still left are mostly old-style paleocons and libertarians).

GDollars37 · February 8, 2007, 8:12pm

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Hilary will self-implode. She won’t make it. She is covering up too much stuff. You should hear the HMX-1 guys talk about her (HMX is the Presidential helicopter squadron that flies the President around). She is not a nice, even tempered person. She’d be the one to over-react in a emergency and hit the big red button. She is like that nut-so astronaut lady…one step away from really loosing it. I can’t beleive there is a man in this country who would actually vote for her.

Edwards would be more palatable, but then what the hell has he done? It’s either Hillary or Obama. They’re the rock stars right now.

You are in HMX-1 squadron? I was with VMR-1 for a short while. In fact many HMX guys ended up at VMR-1. I loved drinking with them because they always had good presidential stories.

I don’t want a rock-star I want a good candidate. My hope is that Obama and Hillary screw it up for themsleves and Edwards sweeps it. He’s a decent person or at least he seems decent and humble which is preferable to me than the other options. In fact I’d take someone with no political experience that seemed like a real decent individual.

I agree with you about HC though, she just doesn’t seem right. [/quote]

I actually think Edwards is the worst of the bunch by far. I don’t like any of the Democrats running for the White House (actually, I kind of like Obama, but I think he is much, much more left wing than people think), but Edwards is the worst. He’s a former ambulance chaser who has reinvented himself as a faux populist, from the comfort of his huge mansion. There is no worse kind of politician than a limousine populist.

LIFTICVSMAXIMVS · February 8, 2007, 9:44pm

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Hilary will self-implode. She won’t make it. She is covering up too much stuff. You should hear the HMX-1 guys talk about her (HMX is the Presidential helicopter squadron that flies the President around). She is not a nice, even tempered person. She’d be the one to over-react in a emergency and hit the big red button. She is like that nut-so astronaut lady…one step away from really loosing it. I can’t beleive there is a man in this country who would actually vote for her.

Edwards would be more palatable, but then what the hell has he done? It’s either Hillary or Obama. They’re the rock stars right now.

You are in HMX-1 squadron? I was with VMR-1 for a short while. In fact many HMX guys ended up at VMR-1. I loved drinking with them because they always had good presidential stories.

I don’t want a rock-star I want a good candidate. My hope is that Obama and Hillary screw it up for themsleves and Edwards sweeps it. He’s a decent person or at least he seems decent and humble which is preferable to me than the other options. In fact I’d take someone with no political experience that seemed like a real decent individual.

I agree with you about HC though, she just doesn’t seem right.

I actually think Edwards is the worst of the bunch by far. I don’t like any of the Democrats running for the White House (actually, I kind of like Obama, but I think he is much, much more left wing than people think), but Edwards is the worst. He’s a former ambulance chaser who has reinvented himself as a faux populist, from the comfort of his huge mansion. There is no worse kind of politician than a limousine populist.[/quote]

I’m not sure what his practice was when he was in litigations. I’m sure the phrase “Ambulance Chaser” is pejorative in his case. Do you honestly think every single one of his cases was a sham? You don’t think he actually might have done some good? I’m a cynic and not even I could believe that of even republican lawyers.

Speaking of limousines: don’t all politicians get rides to the capitol in them? That to me smells of aristocracy.

Headhunter · February 8, 2007, 11:29pm

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Hilary will self-implode. She won’t make it. She is covering up too much stuff. You should hear the HMX-1 guys talk about her (HMX is the Presidential helicopter squadron that flies the President around). She is not a nice, even tempered person. She’d be the one to over-react in a emergency and hit the big red button. She is like that nut-so astronaut lady…one step away from really loosing it. I can’t beleive there is a man in this country who would actually vote for her.

Edwards would be more palatable, but then what the hell has he done? It’s either Hillary or Obama. They’re the rock stars right now.

You are in HMX-1 squadron? I was with VMR-1 for a short while. In fact many HMX guys ended up at VMR-1. I loved drinking with them because they always had good presidential stories.

I don’t want a rock-star I want a good candidate. My hope is that Obama and Hillary screw it up for themsleves and Edwards sweeps it. He’s a decent person or at least he seems decent and humble which is preferable to me than the other options. In fact I’d take someone with no political experience that seemed like a real decent individual.

I agree with you about HC though, she just doesn’t seem right.

I actually think Edwards is the worst of the bunch by far. I don’t like any of the Democrats running for the White House (actually, I kind of like Obama, but I think he is much, much more left wing than people think), but Edwards is the worst. He’s a former ambulance chaser who has reinvented himself as a faux populist, from the comfort of his huge mansion. There is no worse kind of politician than a limousine populist.[/quote]

You’re right about Edwards. His main trouble is that Hillary has New York, unless Rudy runs. She’d then get California as well, so she’s got a huge leg up on everyone. Unless she comes out with another “Fucking Jew bastard!” or equivalent, she’s pretty much a lock and her party knows it.

The Republicans have no chance unless they can pry NY from Hillary, and only Rudy can do that. If Rudy runs, he’d probably take NY, New Jersey, all the red states and probably Florida. His party will beg him to run.

I think (switching from before) its HRC vs Rudy, with Rudy just nosing her out.

PGJ · February 8, 2007, 11:50pm

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…

I don’t want a rock-star I want a good candidate. My hope is that Obama and Hillary screw it up for themsleves and Edwards sweeps it. He’s a decent person or at least he seems decent and humble which is preferable to me than the other options. In fact I’d take someone with no political experience that seemed like a real decent individual.

I agree with you about HC though, she just doesn’t seem right.

Don’t know too much about Edwards but his career as a lawyer bothers me. He allegedly “channeled” dead babies in court during malpractice suits.

Anyone involved in malpractice lawsuits is tainted.

His comments about Christopher Reeves walking today if Kerry was elected really bothered me too.

Bill Richardson?

Yeah, Richardson seems good too. Everytime he speaks he seems not to put his foot in his mouth and doesn’t come across as a typical know-it-all politician.

That’s probably my biggest pet peve about politicians–they should sometimes be able to just be straight with the American public and admit they don’t know when they don’t. I think the American public could be more forgiving if we felt we weren’t constantly being lied to.

I understand one man cannot know everything he might need to know but he should be able to admit it and find someone that can answer the tough questions.[/quote]

Unfortunately, a politician admiting he/she is wrong is the greatest gift to his/her opponent. I believe President Bush knows he screwed some things up, but he will NEVER publicly admit that. That would be the sound bite of the centruy and the Dems would cream themselves and play it constantly. SOmetimes when you are in high places, it is not good to admit mistakes.

PGJ · February 8, 2007, 11:57pm

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
PGJ wrote:
Hilary will self-implode. She won’t make it. She is covering up too much stuff. You should hear the HMX-1 guys talk about her (HMX is the Presidential helicopter squadron that flies the President around). She is not a nice, even tempered person. She’d be the one to over-react in a emergency and hit the big red button. She is like that nut-so astronaut lady…one step away from really loosing it. I can’t beleive there is a man in this country who would actually vote for her.

Edwards would be more palatable, but then what the hell has he done? It’s either Hillary or Obama. They’re the rock stars right now.

You are in HMX-1 squadron? I was with VMR-1 for a short while. In fact many HMX guys ended up at VMR-1. I loved drinking with them because they always had good presidential stories.

I don’t want a rock-star I want a good candidate. My hope is that Obama and Hillary screw it up for themsleves and Edwards sweeps it. He’s a decent person or at least he seems decent and humble which is preferable to me than the other options. In fact I’d take someone with no political experience that seemed like a real decent individual.

I agree with you about HC though, she just doesn’t seem right.

I actually think Edwards is the worst of the bunch by far. I don’t like any of the Democrats running for the White House (actually, I kind of like Obama, but I think he is much, much more left wing than people think), but Edwards is the worst. He’s a former ambulance chaser who has reinvented himself as a faux populist, from the comfort of his huge mansion. There is no worse kind of politician than a limousine populist.

I’m not sure what his practice was when he was in litigations. I’m sure the phrase “Ambulance Chaser” is pejorative in his case. Do you honestly think every single one of his cases was a sham? You don’t think he actually might have done some good? I’m a cynic and not even I could believe that of even republican lawyers.

Speaking of limousines: don’t all politicians get rides to the capitol in them? That to me smells of aristocracy.[/quote]

My Dad is a doctor. Been practicing since the 70’s. He HATES Edwards. His rediculous medical malpractice lawsuits are part of the reason medical insurance for doctors costs so much, which in turn is charged to patients. He said the main reason there was not enough flu vaccine last year (or the year before, I forgot) is because Edwards won a HUGE settlement against the largest American flu vaccine manufacture and ran them out of business. That’s why we had to get the vaccine from overseas. Nobody wants to make it here anymore.

I would still prefer him to Hillary. Where’s Zell?

Nominal_Prospect · February 9, 2007, 8:56am

[quote]PGJ wrote:
First of all, our troops are in many other countries at the request of those nations (usually to defend that nation from neighboring threats). [/quote]

They’re there at the request of those nation’s governments - big difference. The citizenry can’t stand U.S. presence (this was as true when Clinton was in office as it is now). So why do governments sometimes request U.S. presence? There are two basic reasons:

They’re weak, puppet regimes that couldn’t last without being propped up by our military.

or

We’re bribing them for the use of their land, bases, etc.

And that sums up the so-called “US Allies”, “Coalition of the Willing”, etc…

[quote]PGJ wrote:
Some are there as the result of peace negotiations to ensure war doesn’t happen again there. Some are there to prevent further aggressions of really bad people in the geographical area. [/quote]

Without going into massive detail and addressing every specific case, those “justifications” are bullshit. If the US military is in a country, it’s because it serves our interests to be there. And by “our interests”, I am, of course, referring to the interests of the corporate entities which make up the power elite. Everything else is propaganda. Here’s the fact: America has never been attacked unprovoked. There is no reason why we should be “keeping the peace” in ANY country if the politicians weren’t so eager to go to war…They deliberately create conflicts in order to serve as justifications for military intervention (American foreign policy under the FDR admin could have had no other conceivable outcome than provoking an attack from Japan, which ultimately benefited US greatly). That’s imperialism. America & Britain rape other countries, chew them up and spit them out.

Neocons are notable in that they attempt to fuse the teachings of Jesus and Machiavelli and somehow justify U.S. imperialism on moral grounds. It simply can’t be done, and the attempts are laughably infantile (e.g. “the troops are protecting our freedoms” – by invading Grenada). You can’t have it both ways. Either “America comes first” or it doesn’t. Naturally, the corollary to this axiom is: Whichever country “comes first”, no other country can occupy that same place at the same time, and thus must necessarily occupy an inferior place. And following from this, if we are to accept that our own lives and property are superior to someone else’s, then Christian-Judaic notions of non-judgement and equality go right out the window. Did neocons all fail 1st-grade mathematics? Enough of the moral garbage already. It’s the fastest way of turning a sound argument into a laugh riot. The Roman empire never saw so much hypocrisy and denial.

[quote]PGJ wrote:
You don’t think our military is protecting you right now? You don’t think if we pulled out that we would be attacked right here? Your national defense strategy of reaction is flawed and simpleminded. You want us to to be attacked before reacting. You can’t run a country like that.[/quote]

No, I don’t think the military is protecting a soul in the continental USA. I’m utterly positive of it. Moreover, I think it’s damn near certain that they are only contributing to the risk of another terrorist attack on US soil.

If the military pulled out (or even better, if it hadn’t gone in to begin with and stirred up boatloads of resentment), then who in the hell would be attacking us? Nobody. Do you realize how utterly difficult it would be to conquer the United States militarily? Forget the size of our army, I’m referring specifically to the logistical problems for an invading nation stemming from the fact that we’re surrounded by two major oceans. Basic geography. Nobody would be attacking us or even thinking about it. The very truth of this condition is what has contributed so greatly to our own foreign expeditions.

Perpetual war for perpetual peace is NOT a national defense strategy. It is the oldest tactic in the playbook of tyrants and emperors.

[quote]PGJ wrote:
And please name one country or territory that America has conquered and made into American soil (Europe, Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq, Central America, Japan, Afghanistan). Every time we have gone to war, we have given the land back to it’s government. And as Colin Powell said “we have only asked for enough land to bury our dead”.[/quote]

How about Hawaii and mainland North America, for starters? Those places weren’t exactly uninhabited and unruled before the U.S. government decided to take over. But apart from that, it isn’t necessary for the U.S. to conquer territory to fit the description of a modern-day empire. All such labels must be viewed within a proper historical context and time-frame. In the modern era, capitalism has replaced feudalism as the driving force of national economies. Permanent territorial acquisition is risky, expensive and simply unnecessary when you can stop in, setup a friendly puppet regime, and stomp your way out.

[quote]PGJ wrote:
And you think all those Americans who are willing to fight and die in Iraq are doing it for themselves? Does that make sense? Nobody gets rich in the military. Nobody gets famous in the military. Yes, there are good benefits and a great retirement, but that’s not worth risking your life for. We serve this country. We don’t serve conservatives or liberals or anything like that (I served for 7 years of Clinton and 7 years of Bush, it’s all the same). We believe in America. We believe it’s worth dieing for. You laugh at that, but then you have nothing worth fighting for. [/quote]

Oh, undoubtedly, a great many of them buy into the myths that they’re defending the country, honoring themselves, etc, etc…
I do have something worth fighting for: my own life. Contrary to popular collectivist propaganda, it is a coward who feels compelled to die (or live) for someone or something foreign to him. Look around you. How many people stand up for themselves? How many people would have the courage to stake their life on their own convictions (that is, the ones THEY came up with, not the ones with which they were systematically indoctrinated during childhood)? Very few. It is easy to see the bullshit piled onto the “dying for a cause = bravery” dogma.

Every weak and cowardly person in the world is practically DYING ALREADY to find some cause worthy of dying over. Patriotic hicks from Alabama and young terrorist recruits in Palestine, they’re spiritual brothers.

But listen, what they believe is irrelevant. The reality is that they’re nothing more than ignorant stooges for big business and big government. If they can’t see what type of harm they’re doing to the world and ultimately to their own country, it sure as shit won’t be the first time in history for such an occurence. In conclusion, it’s safe to assume that America will continue to flaunt it’s arrogance and hypocrisy on a massive scale until it no longer possess the economic and/or military means to do so. And it’s quite likely that this (the latter scenario) will occur in our lifetimes.

I hope this post isn’t ignored by the resident warmongers, but I suspect that it will be, just like my previous one.

PGJ · February 9, 2007, 3:03pm

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
PGJ wrote:
First of all, our troops are in many other countries at the request of those nations (usually to defend that nation from neighboring threats).

They’re there at the request of those nation’s governments - big difference. The citizenry can’t stand U.S. presence (this was as true when Clinton was in office as it is now). So why do governments sometimes request U.S. presence? There are two basic reasons:

They’re weak, puppet regimes that couldn’t last without being propped up by our military.

or

We’re bribing them for the use of their land, bases, etc.

And that sums up the so-called “US Allies”, “Coalition of the Willing”, etc…

PGJ wrote:
Some are there as the result of peace negotiations to ensure war doesn’t happen again there. Some are there to prevent further aggressions of really bad people in the geographical area.

Without going into massive detail and addressing every specific case, those “justifications” are bullshit. If the US military is in a country, it’s because it serves our interests to be there. And by “our interests”, I am, of course, referring to the interests of the corporate entities which make up the power elite. Everything else is propaganda. Here’s the fact: America has never been attacked unprovoked. There is no reason why we should be “keeping the peace” in ANY country if the politicians weren’t so eager to go to war…They deliberately create conflicts in order to serve as justifications for military intervention (American foreign policy under the FDR admin could have had no other conceivable outcome than provoking an attack from Japan, which ultimately benefited US greatly). That’s imperialism. America & Britain rape other countries, chew them up and spit them out.

Neocons are notable in that they attempt to fuse the teachings of Jesus and Machiavelli and somehow justify U.S. imperialism on moral grounds. It simply can’t be done, and the attempts are laughably infantile (e.g. “the troops are protecting our freedoms” – by invading Grenada). You can’t have it both ways. Either “America comes first” or it doesn’t. Naturally, the corollary to this axiom is: Whichever country “comes first”, no other country can occupy that same place at the same time, and thus must necessarily occupy an inferior place. And following from this, if we are to accept that our own lives and property are superior to someone else’s, then Christian-Judaic notions of non-judgement and equality go right out the window. Did neocons all fail 1st-grade mathematics? Enough of the moral garbage already. It’s the fastest way of turning a sound argument into a laugh riot. The Roman empire never saw so much hypocrisy and denial.

PGJ wrote:
You don’t think our military is protecting you right now? You don’t think if we pulled out that we would be attacked right here? Your national defense strategy of reaction is flawed and simpleminded. You want us to to be attacked before reacting. You can’t run a country like that.

No, I don’t think the military is protecting a soul in the continental USA. I’m utterly positive of it. Moreover, I think it’s damn near certain that they are only contributing to the risk of another terrorist attack on US soil.

If the military pulled out (or even better, if it hadn’t gone in to begin with and stirred up boatloads of resentment), then who in the hell would be attacking us? Nobody. Do you realize how utterly difficult it would be to conquer the United States militarily? Forget the size of our army, I’m referring specifically to the logistical problems for an invading nation stemming from the fact that we’re surrounded by two major oceans. Basic geography. Nobody would be attacking us or even thinking about it. The very truth of this condition is what has contributed so greatly to our own foreign expeditions.

Perpetual war for perpetual peace is NOT a national defense strategy. It is the oldest tactic in the playbook of tyrants and emperors.

PGJ wrote:
And please name one country or territory that America has conquered and made into American soil (Europe, Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq, Central America, Japan, Afghanistan). Every time we have gone to war, we have given the land back to it’s government. And as Colin Powell said “we have only asked for enough land to bury our dead”.

How about Hawaii and mainland North America, for starters? Those places weren’t exactly uninhabited and unruled before the U.S. government decided to take over. But apart from that, it isn’t necessary for the U.S. to conquer territory to fit the description of a modern-day empire. All such labels must be viewed within a proper historical context and time-frame. In the modern era, capitalism has replaced feudalism as the driving force of national economies. Permanent territorial acquisition is risky, expensive and simply unnecessary when you can stop in, setup a friendly puppet regime, and stomp your way out.

PGJ wrote:
And you think all those Americans who are willing to fight and die in Iraq are doing it for themselves? Does that make sense? Nobody gets rich in the military. Nobody gets famous in the military. Yes, there are good benefits and a great retirement, but that’s not worth risking your life for. We serve this country. We don’t serve conservatives or liberals or anything like that (I served for 7 years of Clinton and 7 years of Bush, it’s all the same). We believe in America. We believe it’s worth dieing for. You laugh at that, but then you have nothing worth fighting for.

Oh, undoubtedly, a great many of them buy into the myths that they’re defending the country, honoring themselves, etc, etc…
I do have something worth fighting for: my own life. Contrary to popular collectivist propaganda, it is a coward who feels compelled to die (or live) for someone or something foreign to him. Look around you. How many people stand up for themselves? How many people would have the courage to stake their life on their own convictions (that is, the ones THEY came up with, not the ones with which they were systematically indoctrinated during childhood)? Very few. It is easy to see the bullshit piled onto the “dying for a cause = bravery” dogma.

Every weak and cowardly person in the world is practically DYING ALREADY to find some cause worthy of dying over. Patriotic hicks from Alabama and young terrorist recruits in Palestine, they’re spiritual brothers.

But listen, what they believe is irrelevant. The reality is that they’re nothing more than ignorant stooges for big business and big government. If they can’t see what type of harm they’re doing to the world and ultimately to their own country, it sure as shit won’t be the first time in history for such an occurence. In conclusion, it’s safe to assume that America will continue to flaunt it’s arrogance and hypocrisy on a massive scale until it no longer possess the economic and/or military means to do so. And it’s quite likely that this (the latter scenario) will occur in our lifetimes.

I hope this post isn’t ignored by the resident warmongers, but I suspect that it will be, just like my previous one.[/quote]

Dude,

Pretty much everything you say is ignored.

Headhunter · February 9, 2007, 3:32pm

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
PGJ wrote:
First of all, our troops are in many other countries at the request of those nations (usually to defend that nation from neighboring threats).

They’re there at the request of those nation’s governments - big difference. The citizenry can’t stand U.S. presence (this was as true when Clinton was in office as it is now). So why do governments sometimes request U.S. presence? There are two basic reasons:

They’re weak, puppet regimes that couldn’t last without being propped up by our military.

or

We’re bribing them for the use of their land, bases, etc.