"The Static Drinking Game" - or - "Why Should I Support the Military?"
POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Friday, March 19, 2004 20:30
VIEWED: 24289
PAGE 5 of 11
Quote:I rather think it does. Look I'll grant you that it's not impossible to find a politician wagging the dog as it were, but in order to justify the accusation we need some sort of solid, concrete evidence to back it up (otherwise it's just libel.) In the case of President Bush, despite the fact that labeling him a warmonger is wildly popular amongst certain circles, if we examine his approach to armed conflict, we find that it is nothing but measured and restrained. Even after September 11th, Bush led our nation, and much of the world, calmly into the field of battle to exact justice on those who attack our land. When, with great foresight, he discerned the need to eliminate another growing threat in the Middle East, he also calmly led our nation and many of the world's nations to battle in Iraq.
The fact that this 'process' was begun so far ahead of time does not contradict my point.
Quite frankly, I feel we spent too much time waiting on Iraq and this is why we're having difficulty finding the kind of evidence that we expected. However, it also demonstrates that Bush is not a warmonger as some would like to suggest. Instead it shows that Bush is a man of peace, dedicated to resolution, who uses the tool of the military, which we have place at his disposal, as a last resort.
When you take the above into consideration with the fact that the actual war itself was begun more than a year prior to Election Day, and that the process was begun several months before that. If you also consider war did not save Bush's father from losing his encumbent seat, and the fact that this particular war was rather unpopular with many voters, it becomes very difficult to write off Operation Enduring Freedom as a political maneuver.
Quote:But, again, on what do you base your conclusion that the goals really were shady? What substantive evidence do you have to back up your allegation? Or have you prejudicially decided that since Bush is a bad man, he must have gone to war for all the wrong reasons?
As I'd said, I see that as a felicitous spin-off from the much shadier central goals of the campaign.
No power in the 'verse can stop me.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ManiacNumberOne:
And Gunnrunner... N Korea and many other countries which the U.S. won't attack already have WMD and our attacks on other less capable countries, like Iraq, have done nothing to deter them from making more WMD and even taunting us to come and try to disarm them.
Not completely true. In the past 3 years several sales of major arms have fallen thou. For example a Russian Aircraft carrier was sold with the stipulation that it would not be use for military purposes. This carrier sale would have destabilized the whole Far East. What helped stop it, the fact that the US would sell weapons to nations it would threaten that could blow it out of the water! Iran has not put in any additional orders for Submarines and Supercavatating weapons, why because the US wouldn’t stand for such a threat and we would cripple any nation's ecomomy who would sell them such weapons.
The only nations that seems to be selling weapons hand over fist and fueling potentional global chaos is France and Germany. Scorpine' and Type 212 SSKs to several nations. Older subs to Pakistan and India. Roland SAMs, Helicopter dipping sonar, even Carriers.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Even after September 11th, Bush led our nation, and much of the world, calmly into the field of battle to exact justice on those who attack our land.
Hmm. I don't remember attacking Saudi Arabia, as 15 of the 19 highjackers were from there.
Quote:
I feel we spent too much time waiting on Iraq and this is why we're having difficulty finding the kind of evidence that we expected.
Spent too much time doing what? There were U.N. inspectors all over Iraq, and when they weren't getting delayed by misleading or wrong U.S. intelligence they weren't finding anything. Why? Because as we're finding out now, Iraq didn't have anything. If the inspectors would've had 6 months to a year of time, they would've reached the same conclusions as we are arriving at now, without the loss of several hundred U.S. service men and woman and the countless loss of Iraqi lives.
Quote:
he also calmly led our nation and many of the world's nations to battle in Iraq
Who? Us, Brittain and about a thousand troops from Australia? That's many?
All other political motivations aside, I think if Bush was a patient man, he would've waited until the U.N. Inspectors came back from Iraq either saying A)"Saddam is not cooperating" or B)"We have some evidence that he is desparately trying to reconstitute his WMD program and at some time in the future could have some." Nothing like that was being said about the inspections.
-The SpAz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Iraq is not yet free. It is an occupied territory.
Granted we are more benovlent than the previous occupier, but none the less it is not our country yet we control it.
When we leave Iraq there will be a civil war. The Arabs hate the Kurds, the Shi'ites hate the Sunni and everyone hates the Ba'aath. (could be I am a little bit wrong with these, the point is Iraq's population is violent, armed, willing to die and unwilling to compromise.)
Plus we are starting to be stingy with the reconstruction money.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That's because the Taliban was operating in Afghanistan, with the aid and sanction of the government there. Not in Saudi Arabia with the aid of their government. While there are some improvements that can be made in our relationship with Saudi Arabia, I hardly see how attacking their country, because a few of its people happened to be members of the guilty organization, (which was operating without her aid or sanction) would help in that endeavor.
Hmm. I don't remember attacking Saudi Arabia, as 15 of the 19 highjackers were from there.
Also, we only took military action in Afghanistan because the government there refused to turn over bin Laden. Even a guilty government won't be attacked if they cooperate.
Quote:A popular theory to be sure, but the statements of Hans Blix, members of the UNSC, Congressmen and former Presidents of our nation, all indicate that they believed that Saddam was still in possession of, and pursuing programs to create, weapons of mass destruction. It's funny how all their tunes changed so suddendly. I mean for twelve full years they were unsatisfied as to the nature of Saddam's cooperation with inspections then, almost over night, they sincerely decide that "Hey, maybe he really was telling the truth." Somehow I doubt it.
If the inspectors would've had 6 months to a year of time
I believe that many of the WMDs that Saddam had were destroyed and/or moved during the time wasted at the United Nations.
Quote:Don't forget the Polish!
Who? Us, Brittain and about a thousand troops from Australia? That's many?
It's true that only a handful of nations sent troops during the initial period of combat (more have since sent security forces), but we can't discount the aid and comfort that 30+ other nations gave to us in our mission. Boots on the ground are important, but so are the rights to use bases, and to fly over air space and so on. Even just to stand beside the United States to show your support for this action is a welcomed form of support.
No power in the 'verse can stop me.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I could go on and on and on about this subject, but I won't. It's all been said quite a few times already. So, I'll just make the one comment.
Quote:
What kind of friend would I be to let an honest opinion come between us?
Static, you, sir, are a class act. I'm glad, however peripherally and distantly, to know you. Come home in one piece, and thank you for what you do.
_______________
"Yep. That's a cow fetus."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fortunatus:
I could go on and on and on about this subject, but I won't. It's all been said quite a few times already. So, I'll just make the one comment.Quote:
What kind of friend would I be to let an honest opinion come between us?
Static, you, sir, are a class act. I'm glad, however peripherally and distantly, to know you. Come home in one piece, and thank you for what you do.
_______________
"Yep. That's a cow fetus."
I may not agree with you on a lot of things, but I agree with you on all parts of this post. Werespaz over and out.
-The SpAz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm not sure that logic works. If I owe gratitude to the current soldiers because of what the military did in the past, doesn't that give black people an obligation to hate current white people, for what the white people did in the past?
Originally posted by TragicStory:
Tash,
The simple answer to your question of "Why should I support the military?" is "Because you reap the benefits of their past exploits."
If a modern group of people can claim responsiblity and deserve credit for things that their "Group" did a long time ago, then it should go both ways and this sort of opens a can of worms.
Should black Americans hate white Americans because of the past? NO. Should the Germans be hated because of the past? NO. Should the Military be loved because of the past. YES?
Logically, it doesn't seem right.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Logically, it doesn't seem right.
You're right. It's not.
The reason you should support the men and women who serve in the military (which is different from supporting the military in toto) was best said by Demi Moore in an otherwise (IMO) worthless movie.
"Because they stand on a wall and say, 'Nothing's going to hurt you tonight. Not on my watch.'"
I've known and worked with hundreds of military people, and not one of them joined in order to kill people. They signed up for a job that takes away much of their freedom and often exposes them to horrifyingly real life-or-death danger because they wanted to protect the US and its citizens from those that would do them harm.
Now, I share some of your reservations about the uses the US military is put to. And, I work alongside military personnel rather than as one of them because I am a conscientious objector who will not willingly fight in a war. So, I understand where you're coming from. But an opposition to war and bloodshed does not of necessity include an unqualified opposition to the warriors who are involved in them.
Even if you can't abide the actions someone like Static is involved in, and do not share his opinion on the necessity of this or any conflict, can you not at least see the nobility of spirit that is behind the willing sacrifice he's making to (at least as he sees it) protect the US and its people?
_______________
"Yep. That's a cow fetus."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Am I the only one who thinks it's a good, moral thing to kill evildoers, even if they're not attacking you personally? Maybe I'm just a psychotic lowlife, but if you could kill Niska right now, wouldn't you? Or you could lock him in a cell for his whole life, thus giving him the pleasure of 50 years in a box, and giving you the bill for feeding and housing him.
Of course, an Iraqi who thinks he's dying to free his nation from foreign invaders isn't an "evildoer." So I'm against the Iraq war, simply because I don't find any of the reasons compelling. Afganistan, however, was probably the most justified American military operation since World War II. Al-qaeda attacks us, we attack them and their allies/partners. Now Afganistan is free to fulfill its purpose in the world economy: supplying Europe with opium and heroin.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME