Political You-Tube video with more votes than any other

Remove all ads!

Well, i stand corrected drew.
Hmmm, joacqin, in a way it was but probably aimed more at the soviets as a show of what we had available.

 

Just a few things....

joacqin: I think a few of us understand you better than you give us credit for. Perhaps there is a language barrier that is preventing us from being able to fully understand each other.

- History has shown very little compassion for the country that relies on the benevolence of its neighbors. There have been countries where such a strategy has worked (perhaps Switzerland) but ,IMO, they are the exception rather than the rule.

- "Do as I say or I'll kill you" is oppression. "Hurt me, or those I care about and I'll hurt you" and "Try to kill me, or anyone I care about and I'll kill you" is deterrence. The US uses an oppressive economic strategy, but a defense strategy of deterrence.

- In the US we honor sacrifice, not killing. Fireman, policeman, and soldier are all honored and considered heroes because of sacrifice. We are also quick to revile corrupt individuals in those professions. I think we are currently seeing a backlash of the way our soldiers were treated thirty and forty years ago -- it's not a bad backlash IMO, but we are putting those who serve today on a little higher pedestal than in the past.

-Fear is also a reason for war. The US entered the Korean War and Vietnam War out of fear. It was called "The Domino Affect" and was a product of our irrational fear of communism (which is the polar opposite of capitalism).

- Politicians start wars, not militaries. The US is unique in that military leaders are first and foremost charged with upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States. They must first follow an ideal rather than a person. Unfortunately, some military leaders lose track of this responsibility and blindly follow their elected officials.

- WWI/WWII were entered by the US in response to attacks. The attackers had shown propensity for military action against neighboring nations. While the US was insulated from the majority of these attacks, it was only a matter of time before we would have been targetted. As it was we entered both wars a bit too late.

- Had the US wanted to destroy the Soviet Union at the end of WWII we would have succeeded. The Soviets had been all but decimated by the Germans, they were in a weakened state. I grant you, the political negotiations at the end of the war were to keep the Soviets from going further west.

- Military tactics have changed drastically over the past 30 years. Previous tactics were designed to destroy morale -- when a soldier is worried about family back home they are not as affective in the field. Carpet bombing is a prime example. Berlin was left in ruins from allied bombing attacks -- no one was spared. [IMO for Leahy to deny supporting the attacks on Japan while fully supporting the campaigns on Berlin is the epitomy of hypocracy.]

- The dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan was not an easy decision for Truman. He asked many advisors and got a wide range of responses. I would venture that some who later condemned the attacks were initially giving Truman support (such is the nature of politics and politicians to deny events if there is no written record). It is easy to use hindsight on the issue today -- it is not a decision I would have wanted to make.

- I have already agreed that good and evil are a matter of perspective.

 

Semantics. Did they really need to bomb the city center of Dresden to take out a communications center and the railways? Did those parts of London really represent a military target? Did the Germans really have to bomb Eindhoven just before the allied forces took it? Did Rotterdam really need to be leveled to disable the harbour?

Call it what you will, but the end result is still the same. Joacqin opined earlier that the military service is mostly designed to brainwash the soldiers into people who are ready to kill. I don't agree completely with the wording - I believe it's more like moral reconditioning, to provide the soldiers with excuses and reasons to lessen the trauma of having to kill other human beings. It seems, though, that this works on civilians as well, in that loss of life is rationalised and justified by refering to those losses as collateral damage or strategic targets, as you are aptly demonstrating here.

What you seem to forget is that those troops have family and loved ones. By targeting those non-combatants, you demoralise the soldiers as well.

 

As I have said earlier T2 I think you are one of the few who actually somekind of an inkling of what I am trying to say but I do not think there is any language barrier for understanding. I just think I am too radical in my thinking.

Where we differ most strongly is your unflinching belief in American exceptionalism. That what you guys do is good per definition or you would not do it. That when you invade a country you do it differently and for better reasons than when for example Russia do it. I do not believe that, I will grant the US are not like the Japanese rampaging through Asia or Germans through Europe but neither are you the knights in shining armor protecting the weak and saving the damsells in distress. We have Guantanamo, the secret prisons around the world, random arrests, Abu Ghraib when you unleash the dogs of war you unleash them no matter what rules or laws you might have. I am worried that if a real nutter gets elected in the US, lets see Obama is the Manchurian candidate Snook is so afraid of for example, people like you would marsch out and sacrifice yourself for your country and a cause that is even less "good" than the Iraq war. If people are not willing to sacrifice themselves for political means we would not have any horrible conflicts. If young arab men refuse to be duped by the mullahs and imans and focus on improving their own situation instead of trying to hurt the US, young Americans would not need to sacrifice themselves to stop them and vice versa. With the attitude you guys have we will continue to have millions of young men willing to be duped by the first demagogue or politican to pick them up and arm them to enforce their politics and their views. If those people would wake up, all over the world and refuse to sacrifice themselves for other peoples gain or fuzzy religious or political reasons they could blow hot air until the faint without gaining any force.

I have been over this though and the only reply I get is that if I put down my weapons the other guy can come and wack me and that might be true but I do not see how that invalidates my argumentation. Especially since your arguments are so circular, they don't disarm cause you are armed and you don't disarm because they don't disarm. Humanity has lived with this balance of terror for ever but I actually think this is the first time we have an oppurtunity to make some headway in eroding it. We have the tools of communication to diminish the tribal attitude of "us and them" that is the root of all this. 30 years ago I could not have this discussion with Americans, I would have no knowledge or understanding of who you are, how you think and what your views are. I would be ignorant and ignorance breeds fear and fear breeds hate. Now we can see that the people in China are not much different from us, that the people of Russia are not much different from us that we are all people and if we nurture this feeling it will be harder and harder for ruthless politicians to brainwash young people and demonize people from other "tribes" to sic them on each other. We will still disagree with each other but let those disagreements be intellectual and argumentative, fought with words and papers and not guns and bombs. It is in the future but we are getting there, we move, we travel we game we chat the world is getting smaller and we are moving towards the "global tribe" where geographical location becomes less and less important. We in the west have the education and the wealth to be an example for the less fortunate parts of the world but instead we use our education and wealth all too often to exploit and more or less opress them. The least we can expect is for our western young to only be expected to fight and sacrifice themselves for "good" causes and not just not throw themselves away without reflection and be celebrated just for the fact that they sacrifice themselves even by the people who disagree with their cause.

You lured me back in T2, stop being so reasonable please.

 

I think I understand your stance on this, Joacqin... and even agree with some of your points. BUT, ultimately I tend to disagree more than I agree.

To me a soldier is a person can be a hero for their sacrifice for a cause, be it country, family, freedom, or whatever. Because of this belief of mine, I find soldiers and others who sacrifice themselves to be heroic. At the same time, I realize that the reason I find American soldiers to be heroic, is that I support this nation and am grateful for what it has done for me. At the same time, I realize if I was a Muslim extremist (very extreme) that I would find American heroes as anything but heroic. Also, in that case I may very well see the 9/11 terrorists as heroes if I were to believe in the cause that deeply. However, my perspective dictates that I do not view those terrorists as heroes (I won't get into the terrorist/soldier argument here. Don't have time as of now).

You are correct when you say it is a matter of perspective as to who a hero is. I can support that. American soldiers are heroes to me because they are willing to sacrifice themselves for the country that grants me my freedoms. At the same time, I also have respect for soldiers of other nations because they are doing the same for their nations. I don't expect other people from other nations to view American soldiers as heroes, I just would expect that they'd be respected in the same way that I respect foreign soldiers as well.

 

Joacqin, that sounds like a wonderful ideal, but it is a fantasy. It can't happen in a world with more than one religion as there will always be those who feel that theirs is the one true path & all must follow, whether by force or by killing them. Just as it is naive to think that we will ever think of ourselves as some kind of a "global village" without some kind of a planet-wide threat.

 

Nice Vid.

But how are the Iraqi people the concern of America?
And why did US Soldiers go there in the first place? A mistake?
Boy, you and your fellow soldiers belong home.

As a man who served you deserve the utmost respect, but I still don't think that going there was a good idea!

 

I do understand this. I guess, ultimately, most us (myself included) do not have the courage it takes to make this happen. We are always going to be concerned about the guy who does not give up his gun. You are talking about the entire world having the courage Ghandi had ... being realistic here I just don't see it happening. But, in a sense, you are correct. Ghandi showed this could work -- and he made the ultimate sacrifice.

You are wanting a utopian society. I think greater strides have been made in the past 30 years than the previous 3,000 years toward that end. Unfortunately, I also believe we have a long way to go before that can happen. Countries don't even take care of their own. Look at poverty levels, look at violence, look at the difference between the 'haves' and 'have nots' within any country. Until people are willing to put themselves second, we will always have a separation of classes and a reason to fight.

I think you are correct in that arms build-up is a vicious cycle (that was the entire premise of SALT). But until there is no fear, there will always be arms. This has been the case throughout history.

For me the fundamental part of your argument I disagree with is that all soldiers are brainwashed. Soldiers bring their own biases with them. A military can either encourage or discourage that bias. It can also introduce bias. Brainwash is a bit harsh of a work for me (but then to you I probably have been brainwashed -- not being sarcastic here).

This would require a common set of values and ethics. If you get two people together in a room you have two different sets of values and ethics. Nearly every democratic country cannot agree on a common set of values and ethics within its own boarders -- most have multi-party systems like the US has. There is often violence between political parties in the same nation.

As I said, you describe an utopian society. I admire the dream, but I see it as only a dream for now.

Edit: By the way, it's okay to be a dreamer -- often it is individual's dreams that change the world.

 

This is a very important point. While no one will doubt the clear conservative bias of our military, it isn't as if there aren't any who lean to the left. Further, not all soldiers have a pro-war bias. Finding a liberal soldier who believes that we should only go to war as a last resort is a hell of a lot easier than finding Waldo, and there's no shortage of soldiers who disagree vehemently with our current policy of preemption. Many of the soldiers sent to Iraq not only were against the war, but publicly protested it. These soldiers still went to Iraq when their time came, but not necessarily because they agreed with the war. They went because soldiers follow orders.

 

First of all: The word "hero" is thrown around way too much here. A hero is someone who actually sacrifices himself for others. Just being part of a military mission - even it it's to defend others - does not qualify.

Then: Many of you misunderstood Joacquin, and vice versa. You say that the military's task is to deter potential enemies. This is correct. But Joacquin meant the individual soldier when he said that they are trained to kill other people, first and foremost. (That's why it's legal to say "Soldiers are murderers" here.) In fact, modern armies seek to brainwash soldiers in training to suppress their instinct not to kill. This is supported by the ever-rising ratio of face-to-face killings in the wars since WW I.

And I'm sorry that I cannot give respect to any soldier who voluntarily signs up if there are high chances that he'll go out into combat (opposed to staying at home for defense of his own country). They know what they enlist for, what they are trained for. They accept it freely, out of very personal motives, or out of a skewed idea of altruism. Like Drew wrote: they pay is good, especially if you're send to crisis regions.

 

Joacqin, as others have said, your wold view is quite idealistic. It's a lovely idea, but just try getting Osama Bin Laden to follow it, or Sadam Hussein when he was still with us. As long as anyone, anywhere, is willing to use force to get what they want, others have to be either sheep for the slaughter or willing to use force themselves for defense, and the human lust for power and tendency toward hate are simply too strong to expect everyone to lay down their arms. Like you, I love to see the best in people, and I would love to see a world where that best was the norm, but unlike you seem to, I also see the worst in people, and would hate to see a world where that was allowed to run rampant.

 

NOG: I think joacqim also sees the worst in people, he just believes that is a part of their upbringing and training. Perhaps those influences can be overcome in time -- I just have my doubts.

Darion: The Iraqi people became our concern when we broke their economy and infrastructure. I think we went into Iraq for the wrong reasons, but we stay there for the right ones. And, yes, it would be great to have them all home again.

Fabius: I respect many people and many occupations. It is not just soldiers who volunteer to do dangerous jobs. Saying you don't respect someone who has sacrificed for a cause because they "knew what they were getting into" is going a bit far to me. Every police officer knows they could be killed in the line of duty. Every fire fighter knows that building could come down during a rescue. Knowing the risks and still fighting through fear to complete the job is always worthy of respect in my opinion.

joacqim: I never did answer your question about the Wehrmacht. One of my favorite books of all time is The Eagle Has Landed -- not because it shows the good guys winning, but because it shows German Fallschirmjäger fighting with nobility and honor. It shows honorable and good men fighting for a cause they do not believe in, for a leader they do not like, but also for a country they love. Yes, I believe it possible to lead honorable men (and women) astray. But that belief does not diminish my confidence in the ability of honorable men and women to do the right thing.

 

You're missing something very important. By far the vast majority of people in the military will never see combat, nor will they get the opportunity. For example, I was in naval intelligence, and have never stepped foot on a navy vessel. The vast majority of people in the military are in some type of support MOS, and will never be anywhere near the action. Their actions in the military will not directly lead to the death of even a single person.

 

That may be true in our current situation, Drew, but if the US ever engages in a war with a more technically advanced and traditional military again, that won't be nearly as true. Aircraft carriers are never meant to see real combat themselves, but rather to be portable bases of operation while their planes see real combat. In a technologically modern and traditional war, however, the aircraft carriers would be among the first targets. Likewise, the pilots of support aircraft like AWAX (sp?) are valuabe targets. Just because that isn't the current war, doesn't mean they aren't engaging in an element of risk.

 

That comparison doesn't hold. It doesn't matter if the job is dangerous or not. What matters is that soldiers are trained killers, and I cannot respect someone for volunteering to become a killer, and putting himself in the situation to kill someone.

And that's including all the support jobs in the military, Drew, because the entire military structure is build to ensure that the frontline soldiers are more effective in killing more people than the opponent.

I see the existance of armies as an necessary evil. The idea that getting killed in the line of fighting - may it be for some ideal or for money - qualifies for being a hero is revolting to me.

 

Even if you give your life to save the life of someone else? Is that revolting too?

 

Fabius, I think I am in love! Except that I think the militaries are an unnescessary evil.

 

Fabius: So I guess police are in the same category as soldiers in your eyes. They are also trained killers and routinely put themselves in positions to kill someone.

I actually think the comparison is very valid -- as is a comparison with the doctors and nurses in an emergency room (after all, a significant number of Iraqi's are being given expert medical care by Army doctors, nurses, and medics). Or how about the Army Corps of Engineers and Navy Construction Battalions who are helping to rebuild schools and hospitals while under fire -- those guys are obviously evil and revolting too.

There were a lot of people in the 60's, 70's and early 80's in America who felt the way you do. Our wounded soldiers had feces thrown on them. People went to military funerals and cheered. My sister cried when I joined (but later she joined as well). To be honest, I consider it a ugly time in our history.

You're obviously entitled to your opinion, I just disagree with it.

 

The action of someone willing to lay down his/her life for others, qualifies them as heroes, IMO. I think it was Ike who commeted that, "No one hates wars more than soldiers." I think he stated the obvious that often escapes those who should know better.

 

@DR: No. I already said that on page 2. It depends on the circumstances, though.


@T2B: No, as I wrote before, police and military are two different kind of shoes. The police's task is to keep internal order and catch criminals. It's part of a country's judical system.
Policemen are trained to only use their weapons in the direst of circumstances, i.e. in selfe-defense or in the defense of others.

The military operates under no such presumptions. Wars are almost always questionable in relation to international law. It's whole infrastructure is laid out to make killing others most efficient.
Soldiers are trained to kill the enemy. That's their first and foremost task. They may have recieved additional training in peace-keeping operations, but that's an extra. For example, giving health-care to iraqi citizens and helping in rebuilding efforts are all well and nice. But don't forget that these efforts wouldn't be necessary if the US army didn't invade Iraq in the first place. Citing it as a plus is quite hypocritical, don't you think?