Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,373,658 times
Reputation: 40731
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionking
I'm putting 2 and 2 together,a couple comments on this thread supporting the actions of this council and defining the Marines in certain terms leads me to believe that birds of a feather flock together.
Thanks for the post. I tend to see it thru eyes that don't reside or pay property taxes in Berkeley. If the elected powers make a decision, it either represents the will of the people they represent or they'll soon be replaced, no different than with state or federal legislators. Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work? Why we fight to defend our system?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionking
Indeed some may seperate military folks from war policy in Wash DC,but some seem to view military folk as relating only to violence and they oppose violence at any cause and even support fractions that would undermine the very foundation of this country and those who defend it.
I'm afraid it's something we'll always have to live with, there will always be some on any side of any issue that refuse to look from any viewpoint but their own. That's a shame, you can miss too much that way Sometimes you think you're looking at something and enjoying a view that's absolutely the best, then you get up, move 180 degrees and find it's even better
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionking
I consider myself pro military,I also consider myself anti war,at least anti war in the sense that those put in government should be very carfeful on how we go to war and consider hard if we should go to war,but sometimes war is necessary. Some anti war activists seem to think war and the military is never necessary or just.Some anti war activists think its voque to support the enemy.....some.
Each of these men saw evil/danger and didn't run away. It's one thing to admit you are a coward (and 99% of us are cowards compared to them, myself included), but to **** on their accomplishments the way so many of our citizens do is a disgrace.
But no worries, the Big One is coming any day now. I hope the Marines return the favor.
At no point did I disparage those in uniform. I oppose the whole concept of "fighting" to accomplish a goal when there are a million better alternatives. To repeat this mistake over and over again and not learn the lesson is very sad. It is illogical to use the past to create the future. Resorting to (and promoting) war, militaries, fighting, etc. only recreates the past. I would stand on that sidewalk and convince young men and women to not sign up precisely for this line of reasoning.
Look if you never served you can't understand. You can't grasp the brotherhood or sisterhood. Its about a shared experience and a common goal. Its about being part of something bigger than the individual. Why try to please elected officials? Most never bother to try and meet those in Uniform. I can't answer your question because it makes no sense. I could ask you to prove that every one who has served have done it with the single purpose of making a president happy. Most do it for love of country. Not what the current admin or any other prex portrays it to be, but for what it actually stands for. A nation of freedom. A nation that has fought to preserve not just our own freedom but for that of others. I love my country and will never appologize for that. I love the flag and will never bring disgrace to it. No I dont demand others wave the flag, worship the flag , or bow low to the flag. What I ask for is that those who don't feel the same call to duty at least aknowledge the sacrifice. Don't diminish it by calling us lap dogs or clones.
To you the Uniform is but fabric made up of fibers. It is no symbol to you. Thats fine and its your right to feel that way. To those who earned the privelege of wearing it? Its much much more. That to is our right.
Brotherhood and sisterhood. Camaraderie. Functioning as a unit.
You claim the military gives meaning to these terms but fail to grasp that its divisive nature--brotherhood AGAINST brotherhood--completely works against that meaning. Would not such unity be better accomplished without bombs, without machetes, without electromagnetic warfare and depleted uranium? I think so and I accept my "call to duty" to prove that there are better ways than dying in a foreign field. I may never understand the feelings you describe, but I strive for the only EFFECTIVE and worthwhile way to bring those feelings to EVERYONE, inclusive. Anything less is not worth promoting. It doesn't take some external symbol to accomplish this (the uniform), it requires an internal change. I know when I eventually feel this, it will surpass what you experienced serving in the military.
after reading the article.. I don't think that it was done in protest of the entire military.. I think what they are trying to do is protest the fact that they are recruiting young people to fight in a war that shouldn't have happened.. It is them standing up and saying.. "you won't take our kids off to fight in this war" rather than "we hate the marines"... I would venture to say that once this war is over... and a democrat is president... bold moves like this won't be happening.. because lets be honest.. this war has done nothing for america but bleed it financially.. and divide its people..
we can all sit here and say.. go berkeley! or screw berkeley cut off federal funding rah rah rah.. but understand the underlying emotions and reasonings... and be open minded enough to see what they're protesting and in what context.. rather than just jump on the fox news bandwagon of "american haters amongst us"
get real people...
"... I would venture to say that once this war is over... and a democrat is president... bold moves like this won't be happening..:
wrong,they will continue,because the idealism never stops.Just like what was said above....."when will peace start?"
peace starts when two sides want it,sometimes one side doesn't like a criminal or enemy and will walk over you while you sing kumbaya and offer them a flower...sometimes you got to fight to bring peace.
Thats why the idea of disarming people is flawed,they think less weapons means less death,what it means is criminals have better odds on you,and nation wise it means you may loose your liberty.
Tolerant? Open minded? As in as long as you think just like we do feel free to be yourself? Oh wait pass the weed and express yourself. Ok now I got it.
I don't think you did get it. I was being sarcastic towards Berkeley's self proclaimed virtues of open mindeness and tolerance.
wrong,they will continue,because the idealism never stops.Just like what was said above....."when will peace start?"
peace starts when two sides want it,sometimes one side doesn't like a criminal or enemy and will walk over you while you sing kumbaya and offer them a flower...sometimes you got to fight to bring peace.
Thats why the idea of disarming people is flawed,they think less weapons means less death,what it means is criminals have better odds on you,and nation wise it means you may loose your liberty.
give me a break... your example is like calling the citizens of berkeley criminals...
I just think fighting for peace is an oxymoron... if you have to fight for peace then what you're fighting for isn't peace.. its a side of an argument... hence the word "fighting".. pushing for peace is turning the other cheek, listening.. discussing, cooperating.. coming together to achieve a goal... your stance is that peace is just not going to happen unless you stick a gun in the bad guy's face? I disagree.. I wouldn't fight a war and put guns in anyone's face and call it peace... and if there is someone out there that isn't willing to engage or respect the openness of the peace process... then you just cut your ties from them and move on with your life and personal business.. and hope that one day they will be pursuaded to the process later...
it might sound all fluffy and hippyish.. but you know.. its the fact...
just because you know you're the good guy doesn't mean pointing a gun at the bad guy is going to promote peace as an end result.. because chances are.. the other guy could see you as a bad guy.. or in the wrong.. and you both have guns in each other's faces.. I believe a nation and person has a right to protect itself and its property and liberty... but fighting wars on foreign soil without the backing of our allies or proper evidence for the it in the first place is hardly protecting ourselves.. its a war of special interest.. and that special interest has persuaded our government to ask citizens of this country to offer up the lives of their children, husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, in exchange for what you call "peace"
that's not peace my friend... thats called exploitation... and if you're willing to buy into it.. then send your kids off first.. because I sure's the heck won't be sending mine...
Look if you never served you can't understand. You can't grasp the brotherhood or sisterhood. Its about a shared experience and a common goal. Its about being part of something bigger than the individual.
tinman, come on now. I was in the military. This morning, I was running with two dozen people from all branches of the service. I'll be out with about 50 military people tonight. They are as varied as can be.
Maybe it was you who viewed the military as you expressed, and your military experience was like that. It is not the same for everyone. Certainly, there is a camaraderie felt, mostly because it's people you work with or who live in the same microcosm; it is not a universal truth.
Although I do have a few friends from when I served (Vietnam), I probably wouldn't recognize half of the people I knew if I saw them on the street today.
give me a break... your example is like calling the citizens of berkeley criminals...
I just think fighting for peace is an oxymoron... if you have to fight for peace then what you're fighting for isn't peace.. its a side of an argument... hence the word "fighting".. pushing for peace is turning the other cheek, listening.. discussing, cooperating.. coming together to achieve a goal... your stance is that peace is just not going to happen unless you stick a gun in the bad guy's face? I disagree.. I wouldn't fight a war and put guns in anyone's face and call it peace... and if there is someone out there that isn't willing to engage or respect the openness of the peace process... then you just cut your ties from them and move on with your life and personal business.. and hope that one day they will be pursuaded to the process later...
it might sound all fluffy and hippyish.. but you know.. its the fact...
just because you know you're the good guy doesn't mean pointing a gun at the bad guy is going to promote peace as an end result.. because chances are.. the other guy could see you as a bad guy.. or in the wrong.. and you both have guns in each other's faces.. I believe a nation and person has a right to protect itself and its property and liberty... but fighting wars on foreign soil without the backing of our allies or proper evidence for the it in the first place is hardly protecting ourselves.. its a war of special interest.. and that special interest has persuaded our government to ask citizens of this country to offer up the lives of their children, husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, in exchange for what you call "peace"
that's not peace my friend... thats called exploitation... and if you're willing to buy into it.. then send your kids off first.. because I sure's the heck won't be sending mine...
yes sometimes violence is the only way to bring peace,eliminate the threat,they don't threaten you anymore.A school yard bully won't stop 'till you sock 'em in the nose.A rapist or murderer will stop when you put them down.A country that attacks you will cease being a threat when you beat them in war.
I agree with what you are saying as what the premise of the war is,Iraq is questionable to whether we needed to attack.But there are certain uses of violence that are just.
I doubt having a earthly disussion with Hilter saying "look just go home can't we all just get along" would have had a favorable outcome,sometimes you have to use violence to usher in peace......or die or even worse become their slave.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
