What the Democrats really think of the troops

[Blotan Hunka]

Well...​

If I may be so bold...​

If the attitudes presented in this thread are any indication, we know what they really think of the troops and those who served before.​

This thread is just another example in a long line of this type of stuff for some posters.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

BTW. Happy Veterans day.

 

[airdawg]

And how do you deflate notions of nationalism abroad without participating in what Tez3 described elsewhere as the US's inclination to tell others what to do?

It is not the Us' responsibility to tell anyone what to do. We "should" lead by example through charity, not forced into a conflict by spineless world organizations.

 

[CoryKS]

It is not the Us' responsibility to tell anyone what to do. We "should" lead by example through charity, not forced into a conflict by spineless world organizations.

Wasn't implying that it was. Marginal speculated that globalization and lowered feelings of nationalization would lead to global stability. Problem is, that only works if everybody plays along. If all but one person in the room drop their weapons, you don't have peace - you have one person in charge. So his theory only works if everybody drops their nationalistic feelings. But we can only urge our own citizens to do so, otherwise here we are again, the ugly Americans trying to shove our values down everyone elses throats.

Say there's a leader of some ultra-nationalistic little country in the middle of BFE. If all the big guys are lowering their weapons voluntarily, what is his incentive to do the same? Do you really think that acts of charity have any sway with such a person?

 

[airdawg]

no, I just dream of world led by more than mere men. If I were standing in that room, I would lower my weapon, but I would never lay it down. Due to hard learned lessons.

 

[airdawg]

Looking at this from a nationalistic point of view, we have too many issues that need attention "here", to go crusading around the world. If they attack us, take care of the threat. What force is necessary to stop the threat?

If the US wanted to, we could probably conquer the world. Has that ever been good for any "empire?"

what is the deference, if the "empire" is a group of countries that meet in NYC under the guise of peace. It simply cannot last without becoming tyrannical. The power needs to return to the people.

We need a change.

 

[Marginal]

Wasn't implying that it was. Marginal speculated that globalization and lowered feelings of nationalization would lead to global stability. Problem is, that only works if everybody plays along.

As long as the bulk play along, it's the outsiders vs the entire world in essence. Mutual protection, not pacifism.

To answer your other question, there's a difference between leadership and telling others what to do. I beleive the US can lead without having to dictate if it provides a good example, and makes following such a path profitable. (Which it seems to be.)

 

[Makalakumu]

I believe that we can have a new strategy for national defense that does not propagate the constant state of militarism that developed after WWII. I think the world is a changed place after the fall of the Soviet Union and we need to change directions or we risk turning into everything we've fought against.

The unwarrented influence of the military industrial complex is the ONLY thing that threatens our freedom and the world's security in this new world and I believe that it should be dismantled.

 

[Cryozombie]

The unwarrented influence of the military industrial complex is the ONLY thing that threatens our freedom and the world's security in this new world and I believe that it should be dismantled.

And I have said it before, and will say it again... once your sword is beaten into a plowshare and you have been subjugated by those who kept their swords... dont turn to me looking for help.

 

[Makalakumu]

And I have said it before, and will say it again... once your sword is beaten into a plowshare and you have been subjugated by those who kept their swords... dont turn to me looking for help.

There is a difference between beating all of your swords to plowshares and beating some of your swords to plowshares. I have never said that we should completely destroy the defense establishment. I have only stated that we should reshape it. Right now, not only is our military power absolute, we have a defense establishment in place that demands that it be used.

I think that we should spend an amount on defense that is competitive with other countries. Spending an amount that is more then all other industrialized countries combined is not only morally obscene in terms of our national priorities, it risks tyranny.

I think that we should focus on defending our country and NOT extending our hegemony across the earth. I think that we need to be good global citizens and participate in the UN when it comes to matters that we all have a stake in. I reject the role of the US as a world cop and so does the rest of the damn world.

IMHO, we are our own worst enemies. The military industrial complex is the greatest threat to freedom, democracy, and stablity in the world and we MUST dismantle it if we are going to survive as a nation we espouse to be.

 

[CoryKS]

I think that we should spend an amount on defense that is competitive with other countries. Spending an amount that is more then all other industrialized countries combined is not only morally obscene in terms of our national priorities, it risks tyranny.

As a martial artist, do you train only so much as to be competitive with whomever you might encounter, or do you train to win? Would you feel as secure walking down the street knowing you were 'as good' as any potential assailant? If we were to use other countries' defense budgets as a benchmark for our own, we risk the possibility of losing a war when other factors come into play - luck, surprise, intelligence, or whatever.

We could step down from being the big dog, like England before us. But somebody will always be ready to fill the void. Who would you prefer?

 

[Makalakumu]

As a martial artist, do you train only so much as to be competitive with whomever you might encounter, or do you train to win? Would you feel as secure walking down the street knowing you were 'as good' as any potential assailant?

I often ask myself this question as I train. I know that I could devote 100% of my time to training and that I could probably attain a level of skill that where I know that I could defeat just about anyone. However, I have other priorities. I have a career. I have a family. I have other hobbies. All of those would have be put on the back burner while I focus on turning my body into this ultimate machine.

And then, once I acheived my goal, there would be the temptation to use it. How do I know I am the best? How can I prove this to myself? There certainly is alot of trouble I could find for myself...and some of it may actually do some good, but who knows.

And then there is the fact that I couldn't keep it up forever. Eventually, things would start to breakdown and things would get so expensive that it would not be possible for me to continue training at such a pace. What would I have when I couldn't train like this anymore? I've put all of my other priorities on the back burner and literally have nothing...

This is a good analogy as to where the US is now. We are in debt up to our eyeballs. Our infrastructure is falling apart. The average Joe is wondering why they have less and less every year.

Our military budget is entirely out of sync with what it actually would take to defend this country and that needs to change or we will lose this country.

If we were to use other countries' defense budgets as a benchmark for our own, we risk the possibility of losing a war when other factors come into play - luck, surprise, intelligence, or whatever.

I don't think so. Our current technology basically ensures that no one could mount a massive attack against our country without us knowing. It also ensures that we could take out any such attack before it would even move toward us. We don't need massive standing armies that span the entire earth. We don't need to tempt our leaders to use them for their own greedy purposes. We don't need to sacrifice our freedom or global stability for that.

We could step down from being the big dog, like England before us. But somebody will always be ready to fill the void. Who would you prefer?

I would prefer that everybody took an equal role in the world's security. I think that if the US played by the rules of the UN, this would happen on a larger scale.

As it stands now, we occupy the position of the big dog, but if you look at what has happened to all of the other worlds big dogs, one will realize that this isn't a good position to be in. A time will come where this power threatens the very fabric of this country. A time will come where this power erodes our ideals steals our liberty. A time will come where this power will become the single most dangerous and destabilizing force in the world.

This time may very well be upon us. This happened time and time again in the past and it will happen again, if we dare tread this path. That is why I say we must dismantle the military industrial complex.

We need to do it before it destroys our nation and threatens the world.