Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-31-2010, 12:41 AM
 
2,208 posts, read 1,829,664 times
Reputation: 495

Advertisements

There is a middle ground. Over militarization in our culture= bad. Not having a military= bad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-31-2010, 03:21 PM
 
Location: Michigan
12,711 posts, read 13,432,021 times
Reputation: 4185
Quote:
Originally Posted by calibro1 View Post
We do need a military. War is an inevitable. We always fight in a physical manner. It's unfortunately part of nature. To equate those that do this as a living to heroin junkies is to basically state that war is not inevitable.
No, I was speaking in a specifically American context. (You mentioned "our troops" which is why.) There is nothing ignoble about the military as such, or being a soldier in, say, Uruguay, which does not make a habit of invading and occupying other countries. I don't know if Uruguay would do that if they could or not, but the fact is that they don't, and we do. Being an American soldier, especially one who serves overseas, is being an accomplice to aggression and murder.

Quote:
You can argue that it is a choice, but we have seen that sometimes we do need to go to war. Part of my family is Jewish. I have great cousins who died in Germany. I wouldn't be alive if it were not my grandfather (who okay served in a civilian capacity) helping our troops. He would not have been able to meet my grandmother. Sometimes war is needed, esp if the other side is that insane.
It's possible that I also have Jewish ancestry, although we haven't been able to trace it back far enough to be certain. I do know that a Jewish man with the same surname as my ostensibly Catholic g'grandmother died at Auschwitz. But whatever that case may be, it doesn't sound like your grandparents came from Europe. If they didn't, you seem to be saying that were it not for the Allies, Hitler would've succeeded in killing every Jew on the planet, including the massive and uninvadable Western Hemisphere. I find that conjecture so unlikely as to be comical, to the extent that anything connected to mass murder can be comical.

BTW the series of decisions that led to the U.S. going to war were made, secretly, in late 1940. That precedes the beginning of the Final Solution by over a year. Retroactive knowledge of the Holocaust cannot be used to justify decisions made before it happened.

Quote:
Many soldiers, esp. those from the academies, aren't as highly superficially patriotic. A lot in fact, view this simply as a service. My brother never viewed it as a form of patriotic expression. That's a good stereotype. It's one that does exist, but it's not as prevalent as many believe.
I'm not sure if that's an argument for or against the troops. There is a good sort of patriotism and a bad sort. A man may truly love his mother, but if she's an alcoholic, giving her another bottle of gin is a bad sort of love. The good sort of love is very hard work.

Quote:
I've read Thoreau. I get his main premise. However, there are certain contexts that should be placed. First, his treatise was concerned about the Mexican Revolution. You know where Diaz essentially wanted to keep a plutocracy of Mexico. Not to mention also during the time of slavery. Slightly more inequality during this time. So the comparison, while can be stretched, probably would not be as apt.
The revolution against Diaz was in 1910, 62 years after Thoreau's essay and 48 years after Thoreau died. We can agree that Diaz was not a very nice man, although none of his successors, except possibly General Carranza, was anything to brag about.

The context of Thoreau's work was the senseless invasion of Mexico in 1846, and the part to which I was referring was where he refers to soldiers as essentially subhuman machines.

Quote:
Again the whole comparison between a Mafia member and a soldier is that war is not an inevitable. We will fight. That's human nature. However, I will say that it is in the best interest of man to try to not exploit our military as much as we have.
I don't think there is a very close or very dim line between being an aggressor or a defender. There are some close cases, but not many. That is the line that needs to be drawn.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2010, 03:34 PM
 
4,410 posts, read 6,121,054 times
Reputation: 2908
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
I don't expect you to understand, your not an American.
I agree with Neuling and I am an American. The military does not convey anything useful to its participants except for whatever it succeeds in convincing them. I don't think the military has any values that are worth replicating. Sure on a person-to-person level, there might be something worthwhile, but overall, the military's values are the most destructive conceivable to the human mind. Competition without conscience is as close to evil as one can get.

And it's "you're", grrrr....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2010, 03:56 PM
 
Location: Northeast
1,377 posts, read 1,049,321 times
Reputation: 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
The 1940's- the early 1960's almost every man was enlisted in the military and went through boot camp and eventually serving our nation.


The 40's through the 60's saw enormous prosperity.
Could it have anything to do with the values and discipline implanted by our military?

In today's public sector, the values and discipline are long gone.
Very few hold the same pride in our nation, nor have the discipline to be self sufficient, because you may not be able to rely on your buddy.

The lack of family values is do to having others raise your children. No one is home to raise their own children these days, most everyone is working struggling to get by. No one you hire will care as much for your kids than you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2010, 05:28 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,866 posts, read 46,355,644 times
Reputation: 18520
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthBTold2U View Post
The lack of family values is do to having others raise your children. No one is home to raise their own children these days, most everyone is working struggling to get by. No one you hire will care as much for your kids than you.

I agree there.


Just think if our shores were actually invaded by an armed aggressor.
How many living on the beaches of the west & east coasts, would know how to handle it?

There should be some kind of actual training or education on how to defend our nation, without full military being available.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-31-2010, 05:36 PM
 
Location: Center of the universe
24,645 posts, read 38,532,038 times
Reputation: 11780
Quote:
Originally Posted by dorado0359 View Post
Sorry, but the the U.S. military was segregated and not a shinning example of values during the 40's through 60'. Jim Crow was ever present in the U.S. military during WWII and the 60's.

Jim Crow and Black Segregation in World War II
Very true. Though my father and uncles (save one KIA) went and fought in WWII and came back, I don't think I could have done what they did and fought in a Jim Crow military. After the military was truly integrated though (sometime in the mid-late '60s), it certainly was a vehicle through which black men and women could advance in this society.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2011, 04:36 AM
 
2,208 posts, read 1,829,664 times
Reputation: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by djacques View Post
No, I was speaking in a specifically American context. (You mentioned "our troops" which is why.) There is nothing ignoble about the military as such, or being a soldier in, say, Uruguay, which does not make a habit of invading and occupying other countries. I don't know if Uruguay would do that if they could or not, but the fact is that they don't, and we do. Being an American soldier, especially one who serves overseas, is being an accomplice to aggression and murder.



It's possible that I also have Jewish ancestry, although we haven't been able to trace it back far enough to be certain. I do know that a Jewish man with the same surname as my ostensibly Catholic g'grandmother died at Auschwitz. But whatever that case may be, it doesn't sound like your grandparents came from Europe. If they didn't, you seem to be saying that were it not for the Allies, Hitler would've succeeded in killing every Jew on the planet, including the massive and uninvadable Western Hemisphere. I find that conjecture so unlikely as to be comical, to the extent that anything connected to mass murder can be comical.

BTW the series of decisions that led to the U.S. going to war were made, secretly, in late 1940. That precedes the beginning of the Final Solution by over a year. Retroactive knowledge of the Holocaust cannot be used to justify decisions made before it happened.



I'm not sure if that's an argument for or against the troops. There is a good sort of patriotism and a bad sort. A man may truly love his mother, but if she's an alcoholic, giving her another bottle of gin is a bad sort of love. The good sort of love is very hard work.



The revolution against Diaz was in 1910, 62 years after Thoreau's essay and 48 years after Thoreau died. We can agree that Diaz was not a very nice man, although none of his successors, except possibly General Carranza, was anything to brag about.

The context of Thoreau's work was the senseless invasion of Mexico in 1846, and the part to which I was referring was where he refers to soldiers as essentially subhuman machines.



I don't think there is a very close or very dim line between being an aggressor or a defender. There are some close cases, but not many. That is the line that needs to be drawn.
My grandmother was from Bavaria.

Look, being a double major that has changed their career path three times...you're bound to make some mistakes (biopsych, history as well as completed half the sociology major. I was in insurance, then autism therapy, then ESL in Korea). Too much stuff in my head. Not a good excuse for sloppiness, but honest.

As for the decision to go to war, it is generally agreed that the holocaust was but one justification. Albeit there was the possibility of more sinister reasons (as evidenced by the locations of the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima...two large industrial cities that were of minor military significance). My professor for "The Atomic Age" noted that it is quite possible that a rationale for war was to help America gain an edge for industrial output (if America's two largest competitors are out of the race, then America would reign supreme). This can be construed as more an unintended consequence.

As for as calling soldiers killers, shouldn't the blame be placed on those higher up?

There is nothing ignoble about being in the military wherever you are. However, what is ignoble are the commands that dictate what the military should do. Declaring war without evidence is ignoble. Being an 18 year old with less than stellar prospects in life and seeing this as an opportunity to become a functional member of society is quite noble. However, the fact that said is person is entering in the military is not the noble part. What is noble is that said is trying to make themselves better in general.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2011, 04:51 AM
 
2,208 posts, read 1,829,664 times
Reputation: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
I agree there.


Just think if our shores were actually invaded by an armed aggressor.
How many living on the beaches of the west & east coasts, would know how to handle it?

There should be some kind of actual training or education on how to defend our nation, without full military being available.
?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2011, 06:29 AM
 
6,734 posts, read 9,312,132 times
Reputation: 1857
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
The 1940's- the early 1960's almost every man was enlisted in the military and went through boot camp and eventually serving our nation.


The 40's through the 60's saw enormous prosperity.
Could it have anything to do with the values and discipline implanted by our military?

In today's public sector, the values and discipline are long gone.
Very few hold the same pride in our nation, nor have the discipline to be self sufficient, because you may not be able to rely on your buddy.
It was a different time, a different economy, and USA was the king of the world.

Look, the baby boomers are the most spoiled and selfish generation in history. Generation x is left to clean up their mess, which is a direct result of their poor values and lack of discipline. It's much easier to have pride in your nation when everything is handed to you on a silver platter.

The standard of living has been altered forever because of baby boomer greed and selfishness. Thanks for that...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2011, 07:28 AM
 
Location: Prepperland
18,851 posts, read 14,031,242 times
Reputation: 16518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zekester View Post
Thanks for the Ayn Rand tutorial, now how about answering the OP's question.
I already did.
There is nothing in the definition of prosperity that is dependent upon military values and/or discipline.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top