3 of 4
3
Mama’s, Don’t let your humanists grow up to be soldiers…
Posted: 17 June 2013 03:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2245
Joined  2012-10-27
LogicMan - 15 June 2013 05:20 PM
Lois - 15 June 2013 03:06 PM

They do push religion and they’ve been called on it many times.  Why do you think they have chaplains on every base, bought and paid for by the military? Whether the soldiers are trigger happy or trained killers doesnt change the fact that they are in the business of killing people.  If any of them had half a brain they wouldn’t be in the military and that includes the officers right up to the generals.

Why wouldn’t someone with “half a brain” be in the military? Who is supposed to protect the country? We don’t live in a peaceful world, we live in a world with lots of people who want to kill us. In World War 2, it was a maniacal death cult, Nazism, and the Japanese, who in the Rape of Nanking outdid the Nazis in the cruelty department. Then it was the Soviet Union, which was under the atheist religion of communism, which it sought to spread all over the world. Today it’s radical Islam. I don’t know about you, but I prefer to have intelligent people of good character running the military, not the dregs of society.

At this point we are now more in danger with the military than without it. 

For the record, I do prefer to have intelligent people running the military.  But that is not what we have now and won’t have for decades, if then. If the US were fighting WWII all over again, with today’s military, we’d lose bigtime.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2013 07:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
Cloak - 17 June 2013 01:19 PM

Yes, it would be great if they respected human rights, and it would be pretty good if they answered to a democratic government too. Except we are talking about the US military, a massive government tool that is used for imperialistic purposes. This is not something that a clear thinking humanist would support.

The U.S. military has not been used for imperialistic purposes for many decades now. You don’t see the United States conquering and colonizing any areas of the world. And the U.S. military respects human rights very much. It isn’t their fault that terrorists like to place all their targets in civilian areas.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2013 07:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
Lois - 17 June 2013 03:08 PM

At this point we are now more in danger with the military than without it.

No we aren’t. The military is how the U.S. underwrites global trade and global security. If the U.S. withdrew form the world militarily, you would see a massive amount of instability and war break out all over the place. The only reason why those European nations are able to get by with such puny militaries is because of the presence of the U.S. military in the world. 

For the record, I do prefer to have intelligent people running the military.  But that is not what we have now and won’t have for decades, if then. If the US were fighting WWII all over again, with today’s military, we’d lose bigtime.

We have the most educated and professional military in the nation’s history right now. I am rather baffled by your WWII comparison. If you mean we’d lose with the people of today’s military commanding it in a WWII scenario, I disagree completely. If anything, we might have won the war sooner and easier (there were some real strategic blunders done during WWII). If you mean technologically, we’d have crushed the Nazis and Japanese fairly quickly.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2013 09:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  582
Joined  2010-04-19
LogicMan - 17 June 2013 07:05 PM
Cloak - 17 June 2013 01:19 PM

Yes, it would be great if they respected human rights, and it would be pretty good if they answered to a democratic government too. Except we are talking about the US military, a massive government tool that is used for imperialistic purposes. This is not something that a clear thinking humanist would support.

The U.S. military has not been used for imperialistic purposes for many decades now. You don’t see the United States conquering and colonizing any areas of the world. And the U.S. military respects human rights very much. It isn’t their fault that terrorists like to place all their targets in civilian areas.

Lol, you’d make a great soldier.

 Signature 

Don’t get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it grow, be like water. Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water. Now you put water in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put water into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.

- Bruce Lee -

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2013 10:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2588
Joined  2011-04-24
Cloak - 17 June 2013 01:19 PM

Except we are talking about the US military, a massive government tool that is used for imperialistic purposes. This is not something that a clear thinking humanist would support.

Yes, this kind of relates to my previous comments.

There was no rationality to us starting the Iraq war, and the Afghanistan war has gone far beyond any necessity.  A truly critical thinker would probably not take part in these events, or by extension, enlist in the military.  Also, humanists seem to be very sensitive people who have loads of empathy for others; those attracted to military service are generally not like that, IMO.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2013 11:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  582
Joined  2010-04-19
mid atlantic - 17 June 2013 10:56 PM
Cloak - 17 June 2013 01:19 PM

Except we are talking about the US military, a massive government tool that is used for imperialistic purposes. This is not something that a clear thinking humanist would support.

Yes, this kind of relates to my previous comments.

There was no rationality to us starting the Iraq war, and the Afghanistan war has gone far beyond any necessity.  A truly critical thinker would probably not take part in these events, or by extension, enlist in the military.  Also, humanists seem to be very sensitive people who have loads of empathy for others; those attracted to military service are generally not like that, IMO.

Oh I see. I clearly misunderstood you. That’s what I get for not doing a better job at getting the context before responding. I’m sorry.

 Signature 

Don’t get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it grow, be like water. Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water. Now you put water in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put water into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.

- Bruce Lee -

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 June 2013 09:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2245
Joined  2012-10-27
LogicMan - 17 June 2013 07:09 PM
Lois - 17 June 2013 03:08 PM

At this point we are now more in danger with the military than without it.

No we aren’t. The military is how the U.S. underwrites global trade and global security. If the U.S. withdrew form the world militarily, you would see a massive amount of instability and war break out all over the place. The only reason why those European nations are able to get by with such puny militaries is because of the presence of the U.S. military in the world. 

———
It’s the presence of the US military that has allowed other countries to get by with puny militaries. Why should they spend their money on their own militaries when the US will gladly do it for them with the American taxpayer footing the bill?

The US not only “underwrites” global trade and global security, by doing so it is practicing global imperialism by another name. The word “underwrites” is one of the best euphamisms I’ve ever heard for imperialism.  There are more roads to imperialism than taking over a country to corner a market.  The US has simply found a different and less expensive way to skin a cat, and other countries have realized it’s to their advantage to allow the US to do all the dirty work of protecting their market and having us pay for it. Who would pass up a bargain like that?  You are kidding yourself if you think that is not outright imperialism by another name, such as “underwriting security.”

—————-

For the record, I do prefer to have intelligent people running the military.  But that is not what we have now and won’t have for decades, if then. If the US were fighting WWII all over again, with today’s military, we’d lose bigtime.

We have the most educated and professional military in the nation’s history right now. I am rather baffled by your WWII comparison. If you mean we’d lose with the people of today’s military commanding it in a WWII scenario, I disagree completely. If anything, we might have won the war sooner and easier (there were some real strategic blunders done during WWII). If you mean technologically, we’d have crushed the Nazis and Japanese fairly quickly.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 June 2013 01:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
mid atlantic - 17 June 2013 10:56 PM

There was no rationality to us starting the Iraq war, and the Afghanistan war has gone far beyond any necessity.

There are plenty of rationality to invading Iraq, but a major hunk of the foundation the rationale was base on turned out to be wrong. Afghanistan is a situation where if the U.S. leaves, it will probably turn back into a hotbed for terrorists, but there is not really anything the U.S. can accomplish by staying there either.

A truly critical thinker would probably not take part in these events, or by extension, enlist in the military.  Also, humanists seem to be very sensitive people who have loads of empathy for others; those attracted to military service are generally not like that, IMO.

Tell that to the Army Special Forces (“Green Berets”). And that’s a rather narrow-minded view of those who join the military.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 June 2013 01:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
Cloak - 17 June 2013 09:32 PM

Lol, you’d make a great soldier.

“Lol, you’d make a great soldier” is not an argument for anything. If you are going to claim the U.S. military is used for “imperialistic purposes,” then you need to explain how.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 June 2013 02:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
Lois - 18 June 2013 09:17 AM

It’s the presence of the US military that has allowed other countries to get by with puny militaries. Why should they spend their money on their own militaries when the US will gladly do it for them with the American taxpayer footing the bill?

The US not only “underwrites” global trade and global security, by doing so it is practicing global imperialism by another name. The word “underwrites” is one of the best euphamisms I’ve ever heard for imperialism.  There are more roads to imperialism than taking over a country to corner a market.  The US has simply found a different and less expensive way to skin a cat, and other countries have realized it’s to their advantage to allow the US to do all the dirty work of protecting their market and having us pay for it. Who would pass up a bargain like that?  You are kidding yourself if you think that is not outright imperialism by another name, such as “underwriting security.”

Underwriting global security is not a euphemism for imperialism. The other free nations in the world are not forced to bend to America’s will. They are free nations that govern themselves as they please. By “underwrite,” I mean that it is the United States that maintains the primary infrastructure for military operations in the free world. When other nations utilize their own militaries, oftentimes they must do so with help from the U.S. (for example France asking us for help to airlift their troops recently) or utilizing the Global Positioning System, or making use of aerial refueling tankers, and so forth.In addition, it is the U.S. military that keeps the sea lanes open.

In the early 1990s, the Philippines told the U.S. that they wanted it out of their area. So the U.S. left the area. The result? The Philippines got a taste of some real imperialist-style behavior from the Chinese, and as a result end up asking the U.S. to please come back into the area (the U.S. is re-opening a base there now). America’s military also is a great force for good in terms of sending aid in times of crisis, for example aircraft carriers, which can cook up lots of meals for people on shore, use their medical facilities to treat people who need help, use their helicopters to ferry people and supplies back and forth, use their generators to supply electrical power to on-shore facilities, etc…

Historically, the U.S. has been busy having to counter imperialist behavior. Throughout the Cold War, it was the Soviet Union (which was an actual empire that was very bent on imperialism). Now it’s imperialistic behavior from the Chinese and countering terrorism.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 June 2013 02:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  582
Joined  2010-04-19
LogicMan - 18 June 2013 01:51 PM
Cloak - 17 June 2013 09:32 PM

Lol, you’d make a great soldier.

“Lol, you’d make a great soldier” is not an argument for anything. If you are going to claim the U.S. military is used for “imperialistic purposes,” then you need to explain how.

If you are willing to make such statements, and excuse many of the atrocities directly and indirectly by our country and its military through recent history, then it’s obvious that we have two completely different worldviews and two completely different interpretations of history. I can tell that any further discussion on this matter would be a complete waste of time. Don’t worry about it. Forget I said anything. You can now get back to your Kool Aid.

 Signature 

Don’t get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it grow, be like water. Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water. Now you put water in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put water into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.

- Bruce Lee -

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 June 2013 03:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
Cloak - 18 June 2013 02:34 PM

If you are willing to make such statements, and excuse many of the atrocities directly and indirectly by our country and its military through recent history, then it’s obvious that we have two completely different worldviews and two completely different interpretations of history. I can tell that any further discussion on this matter would be a complete waste of time. Don’t worry about it. Forget I said anything. You can now get back to your Kool Aid.

What atrocities do you speak of? To the extent the U.S. has been involved anywhere in recent history (Vietnam, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc…) it has been to deal with evil, not to perpetuate it. One thing I notice with this line of argument is the people making it always accuse those who disagree with them as “drinking the Kool Aid,” when from what I can see, it is themselves that have been drinking something odd. And no one is saying America has not made any mistakes through recent history, but global policy is far more complex when dealing with evils like the Soviets and terrorists.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 June 2013 03:29 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2245
Joined  2012-10-27
LogicMan - 18 June 2013 02:00 PM
Lois - 18 June 2013 09:17 AM

It’s the presence of the US military that has allowed other countries to get by with puny militaries. Why should they spend their money on their own militaries when the US will gladly do it for them with the American taxpayer footing the bill?

The US not only “underwrites” global trade and global security, by doing so it is practicing global imperialism by another name. The word “underwrites” is one of the best euphamisms I’ve ever heard for imperialism.  There are more roads to imperialism than taking over a country to corner a market.  The US has simply found a different and less expensive way to skin a cat, and other countries have realized it’s to their advantage to allow the US to do all the dirty work of protecting their market and having us pay for it. Who would pass up a bargain like that?  You are kidding yourself if you think that is not outright imperialism by another name, such as “underwriting security.”

Underwriting global security is not a euphemism for imperialism. The other free nations in the world are not forced to bend to America’s will. They are free nations that govern themselves as they please. By “underwrite,” I mean that it is the United States that maintains the primary infrastructure for military operations in the free world. When other nations utilize their own militaries, oftentimes they must do so with help from the U.S. (for example France asking us for help to airlift their troops recently) or utilizing the Global Positioning System, or making use of aerial refueling tankers, and so forth.In addition, it is the U.S. military that keeps the sea lanes open.

In the early 1990s, the Philippines told the U.S. that they wanted it out of their area. So the U.S. left the area. The result? The Philippines got a taste of some real imperialist-style behavior from the Chinese, and as a result end up asking the U.S. to please come back into the area (the U.S. is re-opening a base there now). America’s military also is a great force for good in terms of sending aid in times of crisis, for example aircraft carriers, which can cook up lots of meals for people on shore, use their medical facilities to treat people who need help, use their helicopters to ferry people and supplies back and forth, use their generators to supply electrical power to on-shore facilities, etc…

Historically, the U.S. has been busy having to counter imperialist behavior. Throughout the Cold War, it was the Soviet Union (which was an actual empire that was very bent on imperialism). Now it’s imperialistic behavior from the Chinese and countering terrorism.

Sorry, I disagree.  All countries are imperialistic.  They do whatever they think is advantageous to themselves. It’s human nature. When the US or any other government tries to look as if it is working to counter imperialistic behavior what they are actually doing is countering imperialistic behavior from other countries so they themselves can be the top imperialists.  Imperialism is bad only when someone else is engaging in it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 June 2013 03:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2588
Joined  2011-04-24
LogicMan - 18 June 2013 01:50 PM
mid atlantic - 17 June 2013 10:56 PM

There was no rationality to us starting the Iraq war, and the Afghanistan war has gone far beyond any necessity.

There are plenty of rationality to invading Iraq, but a major hunk of the foundation the rationale was base on turned out to be wrong.

What reasons were there for Iraq?

Afghanistan is a situation where if the U.S. leaves, it will probably turn back into a hotbed for terrorists, but there is not really anything the U.S. can accomplish by staying there either.

I mostly agree with you here, but the terrorists are a bigger threat to Afghanistan itself, and it’s neighbors, then us.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 June 2013 03:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2588
Joined  2011-04-24
LogicMan - 18 June 2013 01:50 PM

A truly critical thinker would probably not take part in these events, or by extension, enlist in the military.  Also, humanists seem to be very sensitive people who have loads of empathy for others; those attracted to military service are generally not like that, IMO.

Tell that to the Army Special Forces (“Green Berets”). And that’s a rather narrow-minded view of those who join the military.

The Green Berets would not care about my POV, because they lack the empathy to see things from my position. (Sarcasm.)

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 4
3