Hi y'all - could it be that the current Bush/Cheney created economic "crisis" is designed (amongst other things) to stimulate enrollment into the military for evangelizing the misguided overseas? If so, the plan is working!
On Dec 26, 10:18 am, Isparklaria <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't know what Obama plans to do with the military as far as base > closures and the size of the standing army. As I see it he has one of > two reasonable routes. > > 1. He can accept that America has taken the role of worldwide enforcer > and do the job right. The first most important step here is to take > the army back from control of the international corporations. I > believe that war for profit has been the primary force running the > American army for well over 100 years. As evidence, here is a link to > the book "War Is A Racket," by Major General Smedley > Butler.http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html > Once the army is following the will of an informed citizenry, then it > will be used for self-defense and when feasible to help fight tyranny > and oppression. Notice that I said when feasible. Helping others, when > possible, does help us, or so I believe. But not when it leaves us > overextended. Then it helps no one. Life Guards, for example, are > taught not to attempt a rescue that they think is not possible. Why > risk two lives. Why run down our military, lose American lives and > ruin our economy for nothing. The army must not be dominated by > mercenaries. This is one of the things that led to the downfall of > Rome. When our sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, cousins and friends > are in the army, we will not go to war so easily. When we do, we will > have a plan to win with the fewest possible casualties, like Clinton's > war in Yugoslavia. If the Commander in chief is failing, he should be > recalled. Much of the killing of non participating civilians occurs > when the mission is not clear and it stalls, like in Vietnam and in > Iraq. > > 2. The second approach would be to give up being the world's > policeman. Neither the Iraq or Afghanistan wars would have been > necessary. The Afghanis were willing to turn Bin Laden and his crew > over to a neutral world court. Now they are roaming free. The pressure > was working on Saddam Hussein. Inspectors were being allowed to do > their jobs. Of course if these wars had been run properly then things > wouldn't have turned out so badly and as much as I hate war, I might > believe that we did the right thing. > > As I see it these are two reasonable options. Both of them are far > from ideal, but necessary in the world that we live in > > On Dec 25, 10:01 pm, CrossBow <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > No, I did not say anti-military, but any generic reference to faceless > > people as child killers is not exactly positive either. We risk dehumanize > > them like we accuse them of dehumanizing their target enemy if we drop the > > casual killer labels. I believe we agree on most as I said before, how we > > say it is just as important. Curious enough, the old GI benefits you > > mention are in place, and for some, particularly those diagnosed with > > traumatic stress disorder, reprieve has finally come, it is now > > formally recognized as an actual medical condition.... > > > read more » > > > Education benefits are working if you use them. Active Duty military offers > > a GI bill of $50,000 - while not Ivy League, can get you a degree that will > > keep you from re-enlisting if you are done with active duty. The rest is up > > to the individual's drive. I'm not sure that the National Guard has > > decreased or increased, do not have the stats on that, but surely the border > > duty and over seas tours have. National Guard and Reserve have been on the > > rise for years since the decrease of combat troop count, and base closures, > > but more attention has spotlighted them since Bush and 9/11. What Obama's > > appointees do will be interesting. Any suppositions on that? > > > On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Isparklaria <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > Crossbow, > > > > While I enjoyed your reply, I think you misread mine. I am not against > > > the military. I just want to see it reporting to a President who > > > reports to the people. I would like see the public informed and also > > > able to recall a president who is definately incompetant and probably > > > criminal. I would also like to se the old GI benefits restored where > > > military service gets you a college education. I would like to see > > > real military service, not Bush's national guard stint, be a > > > prequisite to be commander in chief. I would like to see national > > > service of some sort, either military or peace corps or something else > > > required for full citizenship. Enough service would also get you a > > > free college education. There are many more changes that I would like > > > to see. I am not for killing but I accept the necessity for now and > > > for any forseable future of a strong military. But it must, must, > > > must, must be accountable to the people. The people and or the friends > > > and family should also be in the army, so that war hurts all of us, > > > not just the few who have enlisted. And a tax cut durring a war so > > > that we don't feel it. That is a treasonous act. > > > > On Dec 25, 1:53 pm, CrossBow <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > "the average joe is quickly turned into a killer through military > > > > training" As well as are martial artists and police, whose training is > > > > much deeper at times than footsoldiers...and I believe those are whom > > > > you > > > > are concentrating on - right? Interesting that you choose only the > > > > perspective of "killing machine" as not all troops are trained to be > > > > foot > > > > soldiers, but a vast majority of today's standing armies are technical > > > and > > > > removed to supply line and command. Most of the boot camp training and > > > > follow-up techinical schools are focused on building teamwork, and > > > > preventive/protective technology instead of end result killing. Of > > > > course > > > > units are taught to kill in unison, while covering thier asses, to > > > survive > > > > long enough to achieve objectives. Where was a standing military > > > > invented? WHY? originally? to protect and if you are Amerind, it was war > > > for > > > > resources to survive. Even Chimps do this today over territory. > > > > MOST primitive tribes either trade or fight, or both on occasion. > > > Soldiers > > > > are never instant inhuman killing machines. When was the last time you > > > > really talked to a lifer in the military? or a bootcamp graduate? Many > > > > humans can kill and we all can be cruel! I am not just blasting you for > > > > questioning, or divulging your perspective,, I am protesting a current > > > > of > > > > codswallop fueled by this Burning Bush administration that has made a > > > > mockery of many. Along with the spining hate mongers of TV!... > > > > > read more » > > > > > Too many people believe in HollyWoods version of the Arnold > > > > Swartzenegger > > > > commando. All movies with military representations follow a stupid > > > > off-base generic, very far removed, twisted glorification of the real > > > > thing. Though I agree with much that you are saying about the regimes > > > that > > > > control our soldiers...some of your information is very unrepresentative > > > of > > > > the real military human on a day to day basis. This administration has > > > done > > > > more damage to the image of soldiery than the Vietnam War because the > > > > current altercation has potential to never end. You are accusing the > > > many, > > > > and degrading the few in the manner you present them. I am not > > > panglossian > > > > in my views...I've just lived with military personnel long enough to > > > know. > > > > GOD DAMN Dick Cheney and his ilk for dragging the image of the soldier > > > > through the mud until all you see is a faceless killing machine! Damn > > > this > > > > regime again for creating the same version of the "baby killer" that > > > Vietnam > > > > did. Spit on all of humanity for not staying aware enough after WWII > > > > and > > > > hiding our heads in the sand long enough to have so little influence on > > > the > > > > political machine. > > > > > What is the solution? Disband the military because they are all baby > > > killers > > > > aching for an excuse to kill children? Sanction misbehaving countries to > > > > death? which is worse? What to do when sanctions don't work? Nah, don't > > > make > > > > up stories of WMD's, keep the sanctions going...and going and going. > > > What > > > > is that perfect solution? The UN maneuverings? ok. What is your > > > alternative > > > > to a standing army? Should be become isolated and beg off globalization > > > and > > > > cooperation with other countries? How long will interests be protected > > > that > > > > way in even the most harmless of instances? Reduce ourselves to > > > > a non-influence? would that help? Live in small insular communities > > > > like > > > > the more harmless "savage"? Avoid global visits to other countries, > > > > stop > > > > cooperating scientifically? Do you realize how much of this effort is > > > still > > > > protected by military prescence and sanctions that depend on it to stand > > > > firm? > > > > > what philospher portrays a humanity free from darwinian combat? Does it > > > > depend on population? The savages you speak of are in small groups using > > > > smaller resources.... Does population necessitate Civilization? How is > > > > savagery controlled? usually by standing arms and not by > > > > prayer...obviously. As creatively destructive as humanity is, It may be > > > that > > > > we will endlessly find something to gripe and fight over...it only takes > > > two > > > > to disagree. According to smarter people than me, we are all savages > > > > that > > > > happen to cooperate if given reason to do so...ie survival. If we can > > > get > > > > past this bully on the edge of the world philosophy what will we replace > > > it > > > > with? what can we replace it with? Love? there will always be a > > > > Machiavellian to screw things up. Too bad we can't genetically engineer > > > > ourselves to be complacent and docile and lay around in a > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
