Open Discussion > The Wallth Are Thoundproof

Favorite Quotes

<< < (37/51) > >>

Caenus:
I happen to disagree a little on the purported "fact" you guys throw around.  The government brainwashing soldiers. 

I am a member of a military family, and let me tell you that a solid percentage of soldiers are remarkably intelligent, free-thinkers.  Be cautious to throw the phrase "free-thinking" out to mean "thinks like me."  We are ALL fallible. 

More to the point, to what part of basic training would you be referring?

Violence of action?  Perhaps the part where a soldier must voice the virtues of his country in a written essay of no less than 500 words? 

These are men and women who CHOSE to serve.  Even those who don't think they should be over there will tell you that they will gladly die in order to protect this country, even from a perceived threat. 

Why?  Simple. 

Love. 

These are men and women who hold to a sense of true love so deeply that they will sacrifice themself for another.  If I may quote Black Hawk Down: "When people ask me 'Why do you do it, Hoot?  You some kind of war junkie?,' I don't say anything.  THEY WOULDN'T UNDERSTAND that it's not about that.  It's about the man on either side of you."  (emphasis mine)

Most of these guys don't care about the politics, they fight because they are our first and last line of defense, they fight because they believe in being a warrior (not a fighter, but a warrior - big difference), and we owe them respect, awe, humility, and applause, among billions of other things.

Being a free-thinker and being a war-hating, military-bashing, Bush-denouncer are not synonomous. 

Did Bush lie?  Yes.  Are we fighting under false pretenses?  Quite likely.  Does that give us the right to protest the SOLDIERS?  NO.  And if you don't think that's the case, have you visited a military base with active deployments lately?  You have to drive through a crowd of people who will verbally attack a troop transport calling the soldiers "sheep," "cattle," "brainwashed," "bloodthirsty savages," and many other hateful things. 

And yet, in the space between heartbeats, this soldier would look at the person spewing this bilous curd of hatred and hostility, and sacrifice his own life so that the person may have the continued freedom to speak his mind. 

The issue of the military, and the issue of President Bush are NOT one and the same.  Sure, he is the commander-in-chief, but lemme tell you something - he IS intelligent.  A jackass?  Probably.  But he does hold an incredible respect for these men and women in uniform, something the American public seems to have forgotten how to do. 

Since when did the definition of "Support the Troops" mean "Get them the hell out of there"?  Damn what you or I think, and show these men and women some respect. 

Realize that I am not attempting to join in the repartee that you two have going here, I'm just voicing my opinion in general.  I see this in a very personal way and have witnessed first hand the events I mentioned above. 

A couple of other things - you mention psychological trauma.  George Carlin puts it quite well.  That condition was originally called "shell shock", then "battle fatigue", then "post-traumatic stress disorder".  Why?  Changing ideals.  Why do so many veterans of Viet Nam suffer from it?  Sure, it has a bit to do with what happened, but where was the country when the soldiers needed it?  The people of the country from 1965-1972 were too busy throwing bricks at buses of soldiers to worry about their psychological state.  We caused a boom in a condition that was treatable, and now use that boom as an excuse to stay out of a fight. 

War is never a good thing, but God damn it, we should be embracing our soldiers REGARDLESS of how we feel about the war.  Our sons went away and returned as murderers?  Horseshit.  They came back as our sons and we threw them to the lions. 

As to the AWOL, Desertion, whatever-the-fuck-you-wanna-call-it question.  It's pretty simple.  Breach of contract.  These guys are fully educated about what they MAY well face in a combat situation.  Now, the down side to this is that the horrors of war cannot be truly understood without having been experienced, but seriously - enlisting just to make it through college is like becoming a NASCAR driver in order to meet Dale Earnhardt, Jr.  There are easier ways to get a signature. 

"There are only two defining forces that have ever offered to die for you.  Jesus Christ and the American G.I.  One for your soul, the other for your freedom."



Remember too, the Marine slogan.  "Ours is not to question why, ours is but to do or die.  Semper fi."

They are loyal to the country.  And they will follow the orders of a commanding officer be that officer Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Black, White, Gay, Straight, Male, or Female.  These men are not mindless drones, but honorable and loyal warriors.  And it breaks my heart to hear a single ill word spoken of the sacrifice and choices they make day in and day out. 

CaptBewil:
"Many see things as Black and White, while few see the Gray in between." ~Myself

I'm sorry you took such great offense on this issue.  I don't believe anyone was specifically generalizing soldiers as being unintelligence.  T do such would be ignorant of the system in which they become soldiers inthe first place (the ASVAB for starters and not to mention post basic training schools "job trade" training).  This is also not to say that they are not "free-thinkers."  However, in saying that, ones ability to make a "free-thought" decision is based largely on ones source of information.  Gen. Ret. Colin Powell, for instance, was a General that demanded the facts and only the facts.  He didn't want your opinion and he didn't want your thoughts, just the facts.  He knew that the only way he could make a good decision is if (and only if) he had the facts and as many of them as possible.  As the Secretary of State, he was constantly lied to and mislead causing him to do and say things that he would not have done otherwise if he'd had been given the truth.  So, with that in mind, let's take a step back for a moment.

In the time after 9/11 and leading up to the invasion of Iraq, anyone who believes the media was not being censored (indirectly through intimidation) by the government, is seriously ignorant of the facts.  In that time period FOX news, a strong conservative news source, rose to great popularity due to the popularity of 'denouncing the pacifist' or anti-war people (besides the fact that there was strong evidence before the invasion of Iraq that there were not any Weapons of Mass Destruction, hence the change shortly before the invasion from "WMD's" to "Iraqi Freedom").  This lead to the 'facts' being pushed out of the way in favor of so called 'Patriotism'.  It would be nearly two years before the brave few in jurnalism began breaking news of the facts of how badly the war is going, abu ghraib, no wmd's, ect.  Even to this day, most Representitives don't know the difference between Shiites and Soonees OR even Alkida and Taliban.  So, again, it has nothing to do with 'intelligence' or 'free-thinking' and everything to do with being informed (which the government limits to everybody, not just the military personel).  By limiting sources of information, you limit the 'options' people preceive that they have and in this way, a government can 'brainwash' it's population.  In fact, we've seen the effect of the news media finally revealing information about the 'truth' of the government that has resulted in a slow decline (it debrainwashing occurs slowly) of the Bush Administrations support, not only in the general population, but in the military as well as they begin coming home between tours and getting more informed information.

The other form of brainwashing targeted solely at the military is loyality to the military and the commander in chief.  The military instructors drill that in, drill that in, and drill that in.  While this is understandable to a certain degree, it is assumed that the 'commander in chief' is not misleading the country and sending the military into the face of death without first being honest with the american people and having full congressional support.  This is why soldiers are sworn to take an oath.  I took this oath once. The oath is sworn to the Constitution of the United States.  Not the Comander in Cheif, not the military as a whole, not to each other, not even to the people of the United States.  Nothing in the Constitution gives the President the power to deceive the people to garner support for entering into a war were soldiers will face death.

Ironically, there are still misconception on the reasons for invading Iraq, Saddam as a 'dictator', and the (unsupported) accusations of Saddam's 'atrocities'.  Most people think Saddam was on trial for Kuwait and the use of biochemical weapons.  In actuality:

"The seven defendants were charged with crimes against humanity during a brutal 1982 crackdown on the Shiite town of Dujail after a failed assassination attempt on Hussein.

The crackdown included the executions of 148 males. According to court documents, the military, political and security apparatus in Iraq and Dujail killed, arrested, detained and tortured men, women and children in the town. Homes were demolished and orchards were razed. "

Keeping in mind that this alleged event took place only 3 years after Saddam came into power and at a time when the US was, at that time, allies with Iraq.  Just another prime example of how gevernment drowns out facts (even in the media) with other stories to control the information it's people receive.  But let's face it, there will always be a percentage of people that are so closed minded even in the face of tremendous evedience, that they will remain loyal to a government regardless (rather civilian or military personel).  There's a variety of reasons for this, but I won't go into them because it will just make this post lengthier then it already is.

On a note of military psycological trauma, those trauma's have been proven to come from events they encountered during the war and NOT the public humiliation they faced at home.  I've known many veterans and have talked to them at length.  The humiliation they faced at home (if any) was a shadow of what they were witness to in the wars they faught in.

Of the AWOL point, I think you missed the point that was being made.  It boils down to why continue supporting a war on the front lines when the war is not supported at home?  IE, why continue to do something in contridiction to the oath you gave (to uphold the will of the people)?

Now if you want to talk about the best direction for Iraq with respect to our armed forces, these are the three best options based on my informed research:

1.  Allow Saddam to regain the control he once had of the sectarian differences in his country along with a slow phase out of troops as he regains control of the situation.

2.  A full commited effort on Iraq (which we have yet to see even since the beginning) by trippling the number of troops and equipment already there even if it means pulling troops and equipment from afghanistan temporarily to do so.

3.  A full and complete withdraw from the country.  There are no WMD's or Biological weapons so there is limited risk to our nearby allies.  Everything eventually reaches equilibrium given enough time.

Options 1 and 3 aren't going to happend for a variety of politically motivated reasons, so option 2 is the only one we can actually even hope for.

This is all I'm going to say on the subject.

Caenus:
Hey man, I'm not trying to start a flame war, and didn't take offense at what you were saying. 

I take offense at what people say under the guise of "pacifism" and was simply trying to warn against it. True Pacifism is honorable - Ghandi's teachings of nonviolence are brilliant.  I don't like people being violently ignorant and disrespectful of our troops.  You ask why fight a war we aren't supporting . . . take a minute and ask yourself if there is a war you think today's society WOULD support.  I don't think so.  I think if the mindset of this society were in place in 1941, we'd have faced the same situation in WW2.  For about a year, everyone would support the war, and then suddenly mud starts flying again and we find ourselves fighting a war at home.  There's nothing that we can do right now to bring our boys home, so why not try to make life as good as it can be for them while they're over there?  Then when a new President is elected, we can talk about trying to get them home.

Personally I look at the situation and shrug.  Shit happens, the world will always be screwed up, but never so screwed up to force me to have to worry about whether or not I'll be nuked. 

As a Christian (please don't start a religious discussion, simply giving you my background) I view things in the manner that the apostle Paul did: "For me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain."  It's win-win, so I enjoy the life I have, regardless of what the rest of the world says.

CaptBewil:
Yeah, I know you weren't trying to start a flame war.  I just wanted to make sure you knew that I was taking a 'Devil's Advocate' approach to give the position on both sides.  There really is logic on both sides of the issue and rather or not you agree or disagree is up to you, but as I said before the only way to make an informed decision is to know and understand both sides before deciding for yourself.  Maybe I need a 'Devil's Advocate' title under my name so everyone knows my post may contain non-mainstream views in order to inform and are not intended to spark a flame war.

It's a funny thing about forums.  Four years ago, right before we invaded Iraq, I presented the facts of how the CIA had infiltrated the UN Inspectors, that they didn't have WMD's, have not been proven to use biochemical warfare, and how Saddam was actually hunting Bin Laden to kill himself (so a terrorist tie would be completely illogical) and I was immidiately labeled unpatriotic, a moron, etc.  Many of my own family members 'disowned' me for a while.  Even now, that they know I was right all along (not that I've gloated or anything, but simply because it's been all over the news), I haven't recieved one appology.  I know that certain people don't want to hear certain things.  Yet, at the same time, I feel that I have an ethical duty to present them with the facts, regardless of what I'm then labeled.  Incidentally, I've learned that (other then religion, I'm Christian, BTW) people don't like for people to shake the 'Ivory Tower' of science (especially Physics).  As much as I hate to see the ignorance and muffling of progressive scientific theory, I've decided to stay out of such debates altogether.  I have my 'thoughts' and 'opinions' and if anybody is interested in me adding them to a debate then I'll do it per request, but beyond that, I'll stay out of them.

xofelf:
Aaaaaahhhhhh! Attack of the opinions of soldiers and the war! please argue these lovely points on your own leisure time.....there's way too much for me to read in one sitting....thank you!



okay fine go ahead and spout off i aint reading it!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page