Why does Berkeley and other liberals hate the military (fast food, weapon, solution)
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.
I thought you rode the bus everywhere you went...So if it's true why are you so concerned about it?
I am insulted that you would think I am so selfish as to care not a whit about the plight of others. Do not judge us all by what you see in your own mirror.
I have been serving the country for the last 32 years of my life and will be officially retired on 1 June this year.
This is my take on this after also being in about 25 countries and about 25 countries. Every country priorities are their national interests. What does that mean? Many things. Some of them are their national ideology, their world enemies, their military strenght, their allies, their economic interests, etc.
To me it is narrow minded to simply see that we are in Irak killing inocent people. There is a lot more behind decisions like that to make a simplistic assesment. Do I agree with the decision to go to war over there? With hindsight vision I will say no. The answer may be more clear maybe 20, 30 or more years later and either Bush will remain a devil or may be vindicated.
Some small countries may not have the military might to defend themselves against their enemies. What to do? Have a pact with more powerful nations to defend their national interests against more powerful enemies. So if a nation does have a powerful enemy and it has some critical strategic or economical interest the US has eyes on, that nation may decide to sign a pact with the US for protection against that common enemy. The trade off? To provide some type of strategic cooperation, some commodity we do not have, etc. So when the moment comes to respond it may look like we have no reason to go somewhere with our military might.
We can very well isolate ourselves and not meddle in affairs in other parts of the world. Eventually that will hurt us. The world power cannot stay alone for too long. It will be pulled into some type of conflict somewhere.
It is very easy for us to simply judge decisions by our leaders without really having the full picture behind closed doors as we deal with threats, world leaders, economic national pressures, etc. I am not saying our leaders always make the right decisions. They are human and some ARE uncaring but that comes with the territory. Not all our leaders will be good.
There is a political science saying I read about ten years ago that tome is very true in the world political arena:
Friendship binds men but national interests binds countries.
In the end it is self preservation. It is no different at the individual level. We take care of number one first. Often if anyone feels his safety, security, well being are threatened that anyone will often take some type of response to protect his individual interests. Nations are no different.
As far as the accusation that we are simply brainwashed trained killer is also very narrow minded and a very simplistic accusation. We Soldiers do have a conscience and have certain moral and ethical standards we have to abide by.
A nation does have an Army to protect not only national interests which are many. I as a Soldier can be a moral individual how I act while performing my duties as a Soldier even if the decision to go to war may not be the correct one. The decision maker is responsible for his decisions at his level and I am responsible for mine at my level.
To think that we can vote to what war I want to go and fight for as a Soldier goes against the security of our nation. An Army cannot be an efficient force if we have to ask Soldiers if they like the war we are told to go to. Might as well simply not have an Army. If we did not have a standing Army and a national emergency arises the consequences can be very grave. History shows the grave consequences for not having a ready and trained military force to react.
Jtur88 seem to be a very idealistic individual and socialistic views I do not share. Utopias are great to dream and maybe even word on but in the real world those utopias can be very costly also. He seems to see himself in the high moral pedestal. Well, I will say this. I am glad that I and thousands of others wear the uniform at possible risk to our lives so he can have the freedom to say how immoral we are and call us whatever he wants. In some ways his put down comments on us wearing the uniform are actually a praise because we are being a factor on preserving his right to speak up anyways he wants even if it is, in my opinion, so narrow minded and simplistic and despective. Actually, he is necessary because people like him do help our leaders and others check themselves on what they are doing. For that I do appreciate his expressing his views.
You have a great day.
El Amigo
I don't think there is any room for emotion. Machiavelli.
You will so blindly support every single thing the US government does, and sanitize it with exculpatory euphemisms, you would object to calling it assassination if Kissinger had said "I only pulled the trigger. After that I had no control over where the bullet went or what it did."
Don't you EVER think the US government does ANYthing wrong?
Absolutely, however I don't think you would agree to a lot on my list. Let me get my mirror hold it up for you so you can read the opposite of your last statement. Look familiar?
I have been serving the country for the last 32 years of my life and will be officially retired on 1 June this year.
This is my take on this after also being in about 25 countries and about 25 countries. Every country priorities are their national interests. What does that mean? Many things. Some of them are their national ideology, their world enemies, their military strenght, their allies, their economic interests, etc.
To me it is narrow minded to simply see that we are in Irak killing inocent people. There is a lot more behind decisions like that to make a simplistic assesment. Do I agree with the decision to go to war over there? With hindsight vision I will say no. The answer may be more clear maybe 20, 30 or more years later and either Bush will remain a devil or may be vindicated.
Some small countries may not have the military might to defend themselves against their enemies. What to do? Have a pact with more powerful nations to defend their national interests against more powerful enemies. So if a nation does have a powerful enemy and it has some critical strategic or economical interest the US has eyes on, that nation may decide to sign a pact with the US for protection against that common enemy. The trade off? To provide some type of strategic cooperation, some commodity we do not have, etc. So when the moment comes to respond it may look like we have no reason to go somewhere with our military might.
We can very well isolate ourselves and not meddle in affairs in other parts of the world. Eventually that will hurt us. The world power cannot stay alone for too long. It will be pulled into some type of conflict somewhere.
It is very easy for us to simply judge decisions by our leaders without really having the full picture behind closed doors as we deal with threats, world leaders, economic national pressures, etc.
I am not saying our leaders always make the right decisions. They are human and some ARE uncaring but that comes with the territory. Not all our leaders will be good.
There is a political science saying I read about ten years ago that tome is very true in the world political arena:
Friendship binds men but national interests binds countries.
In the end it is self preservation. It is no different at the individual level. We take care of number one first. Often if anyone feels his safety, security, well being are threatened that anyone will often take some type of response to protect his individual interests. Nations are no different.
As far as the accusation that we are simply brainwashed trained killer is also very narrow minded and a very simplistic accusation. We Soldiers do have a conscience and have certain moral and ethical standards we have to abide by.
A nation does have an Army to protect not only national interests which are many. I as a Soldier can be a moral individual how I act while performing my duties as a Soldier even if the decision to go to war may not be the correct one. The decision maker is responsible for his decisions at his level and I am responsible for mine at my level.
To think that we can vote to what war I want to go and fight for as a Soldier goes against the security of our nation. An Army cannot be an efficient force if we have to ask Soldiers if they like the war we are told to go to. Might as well simply not have an Army. If we did not have a standing Army and a national emergency arises the consequences can be very grave. History shows the grave consequences for not having a ready and trained military force to react.
Jtur88 seem to be a very idealistic individual and socialistic views I do not share. Utopias are great to dream and maybe even word on but in the real world those utopias can be very costly also. He seems to see himself in the high moral pedestal. Well, I will say this. I am glad that I and thousands of others wear the uniform at possible risk to our lives so he can have the freedom to say how immoral we are and call us whatever he wants. In some ways his put down comments on us wearing the uniform are actually a praise because we are being a factor on preserving his right to speak up anyways he wants even if it is, in my opinion, so narrow minded and simplistic and despective. Actually, he is necessary because people like him do help our leaders and others check themselves on what they are doing. For that I do appreciate his expressing his views.
You have a great day.
El Amigo
This is a very well-reasoned comment. I would question only a few points on it.
If the people of a nation are unwilling to go to war, perhaps that suggests that no valid reasons exist to go to war. If you're asking soldiers to go to war to defend a democratic process, the decision to go to war should also reflect the will of the people. The Vietnam debacle ended for only one reason---reasonable men refused to obey the command to go. I have heard that a similar phenomenon is beginning to occur in Iraq and Afghanistan, where more and more troops are simply showing up for roll call, but keeping out of sight of commanders for the rest of the day, or creating excuses for unexecuted commands..
As for your defense pacts, we are at the moment talking about the Islamic sphere of influence. Logically, there should be a central power within that region, with which smaller countries can align for mutual defense. By refusing Iran (the logical candidate) the opportunity to develop defensive capacity, we are forcing the Islamic nations to align themselves with power alien to their own interests. Some will align with the USA, some with China, some with Russia, and that is practically a guarantee that wars will break out in the region. The best thing for the Islamic word's security would be for them all to align themselves with a single big brother, which has defensive clout and a mutual interest with the pact members. America is doing everything in its power, including nuclear threat, to stop that stabilizing evolution from taking place.
I am insulted that you would think I am so selfish as to care not a whit about the plight of others. Do not judge us all by what you see in your own mirror.
Tell them to slow down and to stop running stop signs if you care so much... Would that not be any easy fix?
And you are very selfish, you fight on here with anyone that disagrees with you...
This is a very well-reasoned comment. I would question only a few points on it.
If the people of a nation are unwilling to go to war, perhaps that suggests that no valid reasons exist to go to war. If you're asking soldiers to go to war to defend a democratic process, the decision to go to war should also reflect the will of the people. The Vietnam debacle ended for only one reason---reasonable men refused to obey the command to go. I have heard that a similar phenomenon is beginning to occur in Iraq and Afghanistan, where more and more troops are simply showing up for roll call, but keeping out of sight of commanders for the rest of the day, or creating excuses for unexecuted commands..
As for your defense pacts, we are at the moment talking about the Islamic sphere of influence. Logically, there should be a central power within that region, with which smaller countries can align for mutual defense. By refusing Iran (the logical candidate) the opportunity to develop defensive capacity, we are forcing the Islamic nations to align themselves with power alien to their own interests. Some will align with the USA, some with China, some with Russia, and that is practically a guarantee that wars will break out in the region. The best thing for the Islamic word's security would be for them all to align themselves with a single big brother, which has defensive clout and a mutual interest with the pact members. America is doing everything in its power, including nuclear threat, to stop that stabilizing evolution from taking place.
The thing is you want to form pacts in YOUR interests and break down your enemys ability to do the same otherwise you will be fighting a much more gresome war to defend your nations interests and way of life. If your enemy is down trauden you keep them that way you dont allow them to form pacts and develop weapons that can be used against you.
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.