Originally Posted by JohnMc82

No, it's because you magically don't hear what people are saying if they diverge from you by as much as 5 degrees.



Oh, every politician denies our use of mercenaries? Amazing.



Do you think our real, uniformed soldiers appreciate the fact that mercenaries tend to make more money, and have more legal protection against the Uniform Code of Military Justice?



Why don't you hop down here real quick, and we can go to any bar you like near Blount Island to ask the local enlisted folks how they feel about the use of hired guns.

If what you mean by "degrees" is Fahrenheit, we differ by the heat of the sun if you, like Justin the cowardly hypocrite, are calling our enlisted men mercenaries. And that's the question to your "local enlisted folks" near Blount or any other military base – i.e., exactly how much do they like being indiscriminate, joyful killing mercenaries?

If I come down, it will be only to share in the joyful collection of your teeth off the floor – it’s been a long time since I’ve added to my collection; never thought I would see the opportunity again. It actually saddens me.

Originally Posted by Aramea

This tendency extends to quite a few subjects. How many modern day "rugged individualists" would make it three days in a covered wagon headed "out west"? Survive Andersonville? It is always easy to pontificate in the safety of our comfortable homes. This isn't a left-right tendency, just a tendency to romanticize things that you have no experience in.

And, I have no problem with folks pontificating or romanticizing in the comfort of their homes.

Just don't put people in harm's way without just cause and don't crap on those who, out of sense of duty, have been put there.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

A knife is not a sentient, self-willed organism capable of making moral choices and being held accountable for them.

A soldier is.

Yea, that's exactly what Parris Island removes.

People ponder about what they would actually do if confronted with the baby in the burning building scenario.
- Child's play compared to what happens in combat.

Originally Posted by The Rani

If grammar and spelling are your criteria for "intelligent and thoughtful," playdude fails in those areas also.

You've obvously have never dealt professionally with folks on their return.

I'm glad for you, and them.

Originally Posted by The Rani

If grammar and spelling are your criteria for "intelligent and thoughtful," playdude fails in those areas also.

Actually, I am not a grammar Nazi in that way. My only point has been that the level of discourse here far exceeds that found in most forums. You disagreed and I gave you an example. I saw the difference.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

What have we taken from them in your mind? We didn't take their oil (they still own it and sell it to us and others) or their religion (we allow it here and respect it and allow it over there) or their homes (they still own them) or their land (they still own that too). I assume you're familiar with "gunning for number 1". Well, we're No.1 and they've been gunning for No.1 (blowing up American stuff and killing Americans) for decades. Do you think I should give two shits about Middle East Muslims, Muslim extremists leaders and Muslim lives in the Middle East based on what I've experienced (Muslim related terrorizism) during my lifetime? Is killing Muslims for destroying American property, threatening American ships and planes or killing Americans largely considered KILLING FOR THE WRONG REASON in America? Is killing a murderer wrong in your opinion? Does the murderer have to be killing you in order for you to believe and accept that killing is right or you'd be killing for the right reason?

To be fair, "they" (as in the citizens of most Arab countries) don't own the oil. The oligarchs who control most aspects of their lives do. They (the rulers) in turn sell the oil and keep most of the money for themselves. Many don't own their own homes either or their land.

As far as "gunning for number 1" goes you have not defined what "number 1" means. Number 1 in what? Fat people? Not exactly something to gun for.

And sure, some of them have been blowing up Americans for years (almost always uninvited Americans hanging out in their neighborhoods) just like we have been blowing up Arabs for years (almost always Arabs hanging out in their own neighborhoods). If we really want to stretch things out, good, hard working, honest white folk and Arabs have been killing each other regularly since The Crusades (and occasionally going back even more). The question is of course, do you wish to continue this killing indefinitely? Is it worth it to you to continue, satisfying a need for vengeance for some slight, perceived or otherwise? Hey maybe it is to you, and that's fine. If it is though, shouldn't you at least consider getting a little bloody yourself?

Me? I have no emotional stake in that region and what goes on there. Certainly not enough to see the need for soldiers there. As far as killing Arabs for the purpose of revenge goes, I'm over it. Sometime you just have to know how and when to walk away.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Yea, that's exactly what Parris Island removes.

My dad was in the Marines. The process didn't work with him, thankfully.

The point is that while we should certainly hold the politicians accountable for our military actions, the soldiers are accountable, too. Quite honestly, given the current state of the nation and what our military is being used for, I consider joining it to be a decision of very dubious virtue.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

My dad was in the Marines. The process didn't work with him, thankfully.

The point is that while we should certainly hold the politicians accountable for our military actions, the soldiers are accountable, too. Quite honestly, given the current state of the nation and what our military is being used for, I consider joining it to be a decision of very dubious virtue.

It seems to have become a path for some to get out of poverty or an alternative to college. I don't entirely disagree with it; many countries have mandatory service for all men of a certain age. The military is almost certain to shrink eventually. Drones and special forces do much of our fighting for us. The military just needs to figure out how many grunts it needs at any given time to fight a real war should one crop up. My step-father is a retired Colonel. We have discussed it before and he agrees that it isn't that difficult to do. There is too much politics centered around the military.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I don't think I said anything about other forums ... ???

That is fair, you didn't.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

My dad was in the Marines. The process didn't work with him, thankfully.

How would you possible know that? From what he told you? You'll never know how funny that is.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The point is that while we should certainly hold the politicians accountable for our military actions, the soldiers are accountable, too. Quite honestly, given the current state of the nation and what our military is being used for, I consider joining it to be a decision of very dubious virtue.

I don't share that opinion, but I do understand why you might hold it. It's fine with me.

Originally Posted by playwrite

How would you possible know that?

I believe I would be in the position to recognize a robot who was not capable of making moral decisions. That doesn't describe my father.

In any case, all joking aside, a soldier is responsible for choosing to enlist in the first place and for choosing to follow orders and either of those is a moral choice subject to moral evaluation. It's not appropriate to let them hide behind the "just following orders" or "I was brainwashed" meme.

I don't share that opinion, but I do understand why you might hold it. It's fine with me.

There are really only two reasons not to share it, though. 1) You approve of what the government is doing these days in terms of foreign policy and military efforts (and there are some indications of this in your posts although it isn't fully spelled out). Or: 2) You have a romantic ideal of military service that's left over from the citizen-soldier milieu that was still (barely) a reality when you were of age to serve.

Perhaps you should clarify which one of these is behind your thinking and we'll go from there.

- on a lighter note, and back on topic -

Obama Has 8-Point Lead In Pew Poll; Big Advantage With Women, Blacks, Young

Filed by KOSU News in US News.
September 19, 2012


President Obama leads Republican Mitt Romney by 8 points nationally — 51 to 43 percent among likely voters — as the race heads into the final stretch, according to a new Pew Research Center poll released Wednesday.

Obama’s advantage, particularly among women, blacks and voters younger than 30, puts him “in a strong position compared with past victorious presidential candidates,” Pew reported.

Obama’s lead at this point in the race, Pew President Andrew Kohut told NPR’s Robert Siegel, is “stronger than the last three winning presidential candidates.” Only Bill Clinton, running in both 1992 and 1996, had bigger leads in mid-September.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I believe I would be in the position to recognize a robot who was not capable of making moral decisions. That doesn't describe my father.

In any case, all joking aside, a soldier is responsible for choosing to enlist in the first place and for choosing to follow orders and either of those is a moral choice subject to moral evaluation. It's not appropriate to let them hide behind the "just following orders" or "I was brainwashed" meme.

And, of course, you were there to observed since he had you slung on his back in a baby backpack (standard Corps issue) during combat.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

There are really only two reasons not to share it, though. 1) You approve of what the government is doing these days in terms of foreign policy and military efforts (and there are some indications of this in your posts although it isn't fully spelled out). Or: 2) You have a romantic ideal of military service that's left over from the citizen-soldier milieu that was still (barely) a reality when you were of age to serve.

Perhaps you should clarify which one of these is behind your thinking and we'll go from there.

I'm pleased with the drawdown.

Originally Posted by playwrite

If what you mean by "degrees" is Fahrenheit, we differ by the heat of the sun if you, like Justin the cowardly hypocrite, are calling our enlisted men mercenaries. And that's the question to your "local enlisted folks" near Blount or any other military base – i.e., exactly how much do they like being indiscriminate, joyful killing mercenaries?

If I come down, it will be only to share in the joyful collection of your teeth off the floor – it’s been a long time since I’ve added to my collection; never thought I would see the opportunity again. It actually saddens me.

Well, I think it might be silly to call all soldiers mercenaries. Just as silly as ignoring the fact we do actually use mercenaries who are more than happy to set aside moral questions or loyalty to country.

Most of the enlisted people I've known tended to be fairly idealistic about their service, at least going in. Ten years later, they're not so idealistic about America's influence on the world and they don't think non-interventionism is so crazy.

The sad part, to me, is how quickly you jump to threats and fantasies of violence when you feel offended by someone's words.

Originally Posted by playwrite

And, of course, you were there to observed

Irrelevant. I was there afterwards. That's sufficient. He was not turned into a robot. That is of course what I meant, as I suspect you knew perfectly well.

Now, if you're saying he was temporarily turned into a robot but got better, we're doing something wrong (or we were in 1945).

I'm pleased with the drawdown.

By which you mean pulling our troops out of Iraq and (we hope) eventually Afghanistan? So am I, if we are comparing it to continuing with the wars. However, I'm not at all happy that we still have military bases around the world, still spend as much on the military as the rest of the world combined, and still adopt an aggressive, hegemonic stance towards the planet (even though Obama isn't doing it in as hamfisted, stupid fashion as Bush did).

I'm especially unhappy that the president has appealed the district court's ruling that struck down indefinite detention. That does not speak well of him. I can understand signing the bill in the first place, in that unfunding the military wasn't an option and he doesn't have a line-item veto, but the court does and it just used the thing in the way he allegedly approved -- so he appealed the decision. What?

As with so much else, Obama shows himself to be as harmful to the public interest as his predecessor, just a bit smarter about it.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I'm especially unhappy that the president has appealed the district court's ruling that struck down indefinite detention. That does not speak well of him.

I agree with this.

Woodward was on the newshour tonight; I caught him saying that if the country is stalemated in his second term, it will be Obama's fault. What a bunch of hogwash. He can only move forward with a democratic congress, and even then under severe limits. Saying it is up to him to work with congress, is the same as saying he should give in to them, because that is what they demand. He should not give in to them. That is not compromise; that is surrender. That is not leadership.

It is unreasonable to expect ducks not to quack. There is no reason to assume that the same people in congress now, would behave any differently than they have before. Obama needs a democratic congress, or no-one should expect him to accomplish anything whatsoever.

We should expect some things from Obama. He should not promote violation of human rights. Maybe if he is re-elected, he will have a freer hand to listen to us on these matters? We can insist that he does, and we can fondly hope.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

To be fair, "they" (as in the citizens of most Arab countries) don't own the oil. The oligarchs who control most aspects of their lives do. They (the rulers) in turn sell the oil and keep most of the money for themselves. Many don't own their own homes either or their land.

As far as "gunning for number 1" goes you have not defined what "number 1" means. Number 1 in what? Fat people? Not exactly something to gun for.

Gosh... it really shouldn't be that hard for you to figure out what it means.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

And sure, some of them have been blowing up Americans for years (almost always uninvited Americans hanging out in their neighborhoods) just like we have been blowing up Arabs for years (almost always Arabs hanging out in their own neighborhoods). If we really want to stretch things out, good, hard working, honest white folk and Arabs have been killing each other regularly since The Crusades (and occasionally going back even more). The question is of course, do you wish to continue this killing indefinitely? Is it worth it to you to continue, satisfying a need for vengeance for some slight, perceived or otherwise? Hey maybe it is to you, and that's fine. If it is though, shouldn't you at least consider getting a little bloody yourself?

At what point did NYC, American planes flying over American air space become part of their nieghborhood. The question is, do they wish to continue their killing and their support of killing indefinately?

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Me? I have no emotional stake in that region and what goes on there. Certainly not enough to see the need for soldiers there. As far as killing Arabs for the purpose of revenge goes, I'm over it. Sometime you just have to know how and when to walk away.

I have an emotional stake in this region and I can both understand and justisfy the reason why we have soldiers over there right now.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I'll wake up when someone turns off the replay button.

Have a nice sleep! Since the stupid Republicans are not going to change, the Democrats are forced to argue against their ridiculous ideology ad nauseum! The only way to ever turn off the replay button, is to defeat the stupid Republicans and send them home for good, which is where they have long since belonged. Then finally, we might be able to discuss some more interesting and innovative ideas. Not until then, it seems!

Originally Posted by B Butler

"What we have here is a failure to communicate."

http://youtu.be/SnO9Jyz82Ps

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It's possible for intelligent people to believe things that are not intelligent. It's also possible, with a resort to allegorical and metaphorical interpretations and a great deal of ingenuity, to believe that the Bible is inerrant. It is not, however, possible to believe that the Bible is literally true in every word without short-circuiting your critical faculties in order to arrive at that conclusion.

Anyone who believes this believes something that is manifestly untrue according to all available evidence. Such a person cannot be reasoned with on any subject where the Bible and empirical evidence conflict, or where a reasonable outcome-based and good done/harm done morality conflicts with the Bible's authoritarian moral premise. There is nothing to be said in answer except, "I reject the entire basis of your thinking and believe it is both incorrect and dangerous. None of the evidence you present, which comes from that book in your hand, is going to convince me of anything, and none of the evidence I present, which comes from observation of the real world, is going to convince you on the frequent occasions when the two conflict."

Where the person whose thinking has been warped in this fashion does possess a high native intelligence, and I admit that sometimes happens, I can only regard it as a tragic waste of a potentially great mind.

Don't you claim to be a wizard or something?

Anyway, the use of the word "literal" is a red herring. The Bible is clearly full of every kind of literary device. The question is not whether every word should be taken literally (clearly that is not intended, and almost no one interprets it that way, including a lot of people that you apparently think do). The question is whether or not what it says is true. When Jesus said "I am the vine, you are the branches", he obviously did not literally mean that he and his followers are plants.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Yeah, that. I checked with Teh Wikipedia, and it informs me that "mercenary" isn't exactly the right word for what I was trying to say. I'm sort of at a loss, though -- what would be the appropriate term for people who seek out work as professional contract-killers?

---
-edit-
Or 'enforcers', or whatever -- the main point is that they sought and engaged in a profession one of whose fundamental duties is the harming or killing of whoever-their-bosses-tell-them.

I believe the proper term is a volunteer army. From the French Revolution to Vietnam armies were for the most part based on mass conscription. following Vietnam The West reverted to the professional volunteer style of army common in the 1700s before the French Revolution.

To me "mercenary" implies a non-citizen who is fighting solely for money and has no pretensions to patriotism, such as the soldiers of the Renaissance and Reformation periods, who often ravaged the countries they were supposedly serving just as much as the ravaged the countries they were fighting (which is why Germany was so depopulated by the 30-Years War).

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I didn't say they were. What I did say was that they were small. As in, insufficient to fight a major war. We now maintain, or say we do, a military sufficient to fight two of them at once.

More say we do than do, these days. I don't think we've really had that capability since standing down from the Cold War. We spend more money on our military than the rest of the world combined, yet occupying Iraq or Afghanistan is problematic. I still think we can do very well in a conventional up front war with a regular military, but insurgencies are problematic and apt to remain so.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Since the assumption that the Bible is literally true is itself neither intelligent nor thoughtful, I must disagree that "given these assumption" it is even possible for any post of his to be such, unless it lies outside religious thought altogether where the Bible is not an issue.

This would fall under the category of not being able to suspend disbelief. If core beliefs clash sufficiently, it is really hard to buy into premises, take the other guy's perspective seriously, and read a post as intelligent and thoughtful. Still, a lot of people spend a lot of time and effort making their world views consistent and resistant to attack. Even if I can't agree with JPT's assumptions or conclusions, I can see he puts a lot of intelligence and thought into many of his posts, and he put his world view together with much study and care... and JPT isn't alone in this. I can often disagree with a post's premises, methods and conclusions as being divorced from any correlation with reality and still see intelligence and thought in a presentation.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

... Do you think our real, uniformed soldiers appreciate the fact that mercenaries tend to make more money, and have more legal protection against the Uniform Code of Military Justice?

Why don't you hop down here real quick, and we can go to any bar you like near Blount Island to ask the local enlisted folks how they feel about the use of hired guns.

Yeah, I still am stunned at the total lack of concern about this very topic. I was angry enough about the use of the Praetorian Guard as our miltary excursion tool (I still want an accounting of the shear quantity of manpower delivered by refusing soldiers the earned right to depart through the use of stop-loss), but the "contractor" issue is even worse.

If we go to fight, we go as a nation. If we can't agree to go as a nation, then perhaps we shouldn't go at all.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I'm sure you will understand this more than those clowns here who have never had (and thankfully for them, never will) the experience.

The one silver lining to the Ray-gun 'revolution' was the end of this baby killer meme. Up until then, my knuckles were often sore from attitude-adjusting my new-found friends on the Left. On my return, I soon went over to the ‘other side,’ but my new found friends learned pretty quickly what was taboo around me.

Finally, it got through to the Left that it was pointless to blame the knife for the gutting; it was who wielded the knife. Also, they began to understand that those who actually had the experience might be amendable to policies that ended or reduced the potential for more, particularly for the next generation (see Eisenhower). Duh. Also, one of the most powerful checks on the chicken hawk Right has been raising the issue of putting our troops in harms way without due cause - it took 9/11 to breakthrough that and a lot of outright lying by the worst of chicken hawks to come along in decades to keep it going long enough to invade Iraq.

So, as I noted, there are no national leaders today that embrace the baby killer meme. Hard to even find them at the local level except for various fringe groups - which is basically what we have here on this forum.

What's funny is under their isolationist or non-interventionist magic pony land, the desire to protect the homeland remains. It’s pretty hard to imagine either of these cowardly hypocrites manning the perimeter. What's funny is that you would think if their magic pony land came about these clowns might realize it would be better to have folks trained to rip you a new one 30 different ways to sunset inside their perimeter shooting out rather than outside shooting in. What's funny is that in the magic pony land they envision they wouldn't last a day. I guess that's why they hide out here in this country rather than have the guts to go anywhere near a place with the reality of what they profess they want. Here, they are free to be the cowardly hypocrites and shit on those who afford them that right.

Good rant. Feel better?