heh wow. Bovinity is right. You don't see it, or you choose not to.

Or you're just making ludicrous, bullshit statements and trying to claim "you just don't see it" when I call you on it.

I'm not sure if it's because you don't understand what the term "professional military" means, or if you don't see a difference between attacking an armed enemy and killing innocent civilians. Whatever it is, you're the ones stretching the facts to try to make a point.

_________________

It's cute when people are unable to see any viewpoint but their own.

Does it ever occur to you that the people planting bombs and such think the same way? That they're protecting their country and culture? That you and I are the devils because we want to stomp them out, bomb their homes, and push them out?

Of course not. We're all white, bright and holy atop our ivory towers of democracy and virtue.

Bovinity basically summed it up in that my response was with regard to leadership who were or are unwilling to make the same sacrifice that they ask of the people under their command. Yes, there are innocent women and children who are coerced or forced into strapping bombs to themselves, but the comparison is with regard to the aforementioned practice which occurs on both sides of the fence. The fact that they coerce and force those innocents to do those deeds has nothing to do with that, and there are many other terrorists who willingly strap bombs to themselves at the will of their leaders who do not.

Except that our military is not deliberately murdering unarmed civilians. Nor do we ask our soldiers to kill themselves in order to murder innocent people.

I also do not see politicians happily crowing about "sending our soldiers off to die," as you apparently have. I'd be very interested in some video of an mainstream American politician doing just that. Got one of a Senator? How about someone from the Cabinet?

_________________

You're comparing tactics. (And yes, I'm sure we kill civilians in our attacks too, even if not intentionally, we chalk it up as acceptable.)

How do you expect people in their situation to fight back? You really think they woke up one day and realized their lifelong dream was to blow themselves and/or some people up for no good reason?

And for Iraq in particular, you think those people enjoy their lot? *We* went *there*. You wouldn't do the same things if China invaded and occupied the US?

As an aside, I'm not arguing that it's not ridiculous for non-veteran politicians to have the power to send soldiers to war. I have long believed that public office at the highest levels should require some sort of military experience. However, I also know that our congressmen and women and our president do their best to get a full understanding from military advisers who do have a lot of experience before they make a decision. While it's not a perfect system, it's the one we have, and if we started requiring military service of anyone who wanted to run for Congress or the Presidency, some of you fuckers would start raising a shit fit about that.

So it's a damned if we do, damned if we don't scenario. Unless you're saying we should disband our military entirely and never engage in any kind of military action again. In which case you're a fucking lunatic, and you need to start living in reality.

_________________

No offense, but if you don't realize why we wouldn't want military service to be a pre-req for public office, you need to grab a history book.... or turn on the news.

There you go, showing your lack of knowledge regarding our military. Civilian deaths are not considered "acceptable" by our armed forces.

Again, you are showing a distinct lack of understanding of the people you're discussing. You may wish to do some research on the idea of martyrdom in Islam. And the arguments appear to be contradicting one another; are they "fighting back," or are they doing it "for no good reason?" You can't have it both ways.

You're asking if I would kill myself and other American civilians if we were invaded by China? That's easy: no, I would not.

_________________

Easy to make vague, unsubstantiated statements about shit when you're unwilling to back it up. Either you actually add to the discussion or you shut the fuck up.

_________________

It's an inevitability. But we do it anyway.

Policywise you can say it's not acceptable, but the reality is that it is.



You failed to comprehend the paragraph. Try again.



I know. When confronted with an overwhelming military force occupying your home, you'd round up some noble knights on horseback and lead a brave charge against impossible odds for the honor and freedom of your people.

Because there's no other options. It's either blow up myself and other Americans, or engage in a fantasy charge on horseback against the enemy.

(That was sarcasm again.)

_________________

I know. And I did it because you were guilty of it yourself, since I specifically referred to Iraq and you ignored all other options and leapt right to suicide bombing of civilians - which isn't the only thing they do over there right now, either.

This is actually a very enjoyable and interesting bit of a thought exercise.

I suppose a bit of dehumanization of one's enemy is required for the proper fervor to support killing them. It's also very interesting how people can demonstrate a complete inability to relate to - or even accept - the motivations of their enemies....even when they are strikingly similar.

I urge everyone involved in this discussion to read "The Lucifer Effect" -- dehumanization isn't something we just do to our enemies - we do it to our soldiers also.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

But those things don't have anything to do with the comparison of a civilian leadership which has no military experience asking someone to go die for their country, and a terrorist leader asking someone to blow themselves up in BOTH areas where there are innocent civilians AND military targets(not that doing the latter excuses the former).

In both cases a person in a leadership position is asking someone to do something extremely risky or suicidal with no intention of doing anything close to it themselves. Whether one side specifically does something differently with regard to tactics doesn't change that fact.

I mean, you CAN criticize those things - murdering innocents without care, suicide, etc - but on their OWN merits. Suggesting that there's something inherently different about the fact that terrorist leaders tell their soldiers to go in and risk their lives or kill themselves is folly I think though. It's not as if our military hasn't send soldiers on missions that are almost certain to result in death. Suicide itself for a worthy cause by itself isn't a bad thing(ASSUMING it's a worthy cause, I'm not convinced in innumerable cases of terrorists). Killing innocents? Very much a bad thing. But the two are separable.

I'm your huckleberry. I think a year, at a minimum, of civil or military service should be a requirement for citizenship period, much less public office. Some of you seem to think that learning how to reason in a very structured system equates to brainwashing or some misguided formation of nationalist thinking. It couldn't be further from the truth. Like every segment of society, you have your wackos and some achieve power (Hitler was a thrice decorated military vet) or some are just plain ineffective (Grant).

In my experience, in 9.9 out of 10 cases, a vet will perform better under pressure and make reasoned choices when faced with quick decisions than your average civilian. Contrary to popular opinion, we don't blindly follow orders, nor were we expected to. Expand this training to the populace, even in diminished form via civil service, and you'll see things improve dramatically.

On another note, and I'm not sure why I'm going this far on a public message board, but I've openly discussed my service before. I'll also add that I suffer from moderate PTSD. Part of my therapy includes coming to grips with the collateral damage portion of my job. On EVERY single mission I've ever worked on, loss of life was a LAST RESORT and was avoided, or worst case, minimized, to prevent loss of life. You people would be shocked at how often the trigger is NOT pulled due to this way of thinking. What you hear on the news is the exception, not the rule and that's a fact.

I empathize with the folks on the other side, whomever they may be, be it militia, uniformed military, civilians, etc. In my field of expertise especially understanding their thought process and culture was key. In light of this, please don't even fucking think to compare us to the pieces of shit strapping bombs to their backs. Their goal IS loss of life, and not only is it acceptable, it's HONORABLE. Regardless of how righteous either side feels they are, that's the line that I consider to be difference between combatants and terrorists. This is part of the reason why I'm so against torture of any kind as well, as while loss of life is not your goal, humiliation and pain is.

I'm sure I rambled off topic here, but I saw a few points while reading this thread and had to vent. Some of you armchairs like to be internet philosophers, but without any frame of reference from which to speak.

I didn't see anyone actually compare the two. Personally I think there's a world of difference between your average terrorist and your average U.S. serviceperson.

What bothers me is when the other side(any side, for that matter) begins to get de-humanized. I personally believe that *they* believe that they are fighting for the most just cause in the world, else I highly doubt they would be so willing to throw their lives away. As the saying goes, one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Some of their gripes are quite legitimate, but many of their methods are not. But I don't think you can necessarily take a desperate group of people who go to extreme ends because of the accepted radical environments they were born into as a purely evil people.

If BOTH sides would stop that kind of de-humanizing of the "other" side we wouldn't be in this mess. While I think it's plain that terrorists take the bulk of responsibility for where we're at in terms of outright hostile acts and provocation(I suppose you could argue Iraq, but then how many times have terrorists attacked innocents without provocation?), I also think both sides need to take some responsibility in mending certain fences for there to be more stability and peace.

So what? Because they think it's a good thing means we have to as well? I don't understand what your point is here. If you want to sympathize with murderers who deliberately target innocent people, that's you. Do you sympathize with the 9/11 hijackers as well?

What they're doing is wrong. It doesn't matter what their cause is, it gets lost in the fact that their methods are evil.

_________________

Who decides what is evil?

And for the record, you have gotten far, far away from the original comparison.

The point is within the quote, it's not good to de-humanize. Sympathy need not apply here; I'm saying if we can manage to not categorize them like some kind of evil animal but instead make an attempt to understand their grievances, perhaps we can avoid this kind of extremism from continuing to take root. It is in the fact that little to no effort is made to try and see it from the other side's perspective that continues this kind of conflict. De-humanizing only furthers us from that goal.

And there are certainly some terrorists that may be too far gone to be worth trying to convince. The question that should be on our minds right now is those people that are sitting on the fence. Many of those people may not come to our side if we do not show at least some willingness to show some understanding - of both them, and the perspective of the terrorists.

Understanding that they have little means to fight and therefore have some sort of warped excuse to kill innocent civilians? No. Understanding of where they're coming from, how they were brought up in such an environment, their grievances, and why they fight and die for what they believe in? Yes.

If it comes to a choice where innocent lives are at stake, then certainly we have to fight them every inch of the way. But we don't need to make some artificial "evil" label in order to fight effectively and stop any threats.

I'm waiting for Tyral to just post, "WHY DO YOU HATE FREEDOM!?"

I'm trying to figure out Venen's complex morality. It's ok to torture people who have not been convicted of a crime, and thus, many potential innocents, but it's not ok to "dehumanize" a suicide bomber? I don't get it. At all.

What can be more dehumanizing than to torture another human being? It dehumanizes both the torturer and the suspect.

I wouldn't say venen's morality is "complex" -- I'd say it's "convenient to the discussion at hand"

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

Yeah, see, I don't want your baggage making decisions for me or my family. I don't want some guy who secretly hates him some of them gooks to be on the front line of foreign relations. After spending years dehumanizing arab combatants to make shooting them seem more palatable, I wouldn't want him to be the one reaching out a hand in partnership or what the fuck ever to the middle east. I respect the military and all, but at some point some of you fuckers start turning fighting for freedom and equality into fighting makes you more equal and deserving for freedom. You talk about civil and military service a requirement for citizenship but you fail to remember everyone who works outside of that who makes that life possible.

It's unfortunate that you chose to speak up and show how ridiculously ignorant you are. It is not a policy of the U.S. military to dehumanize Arabs. Quite the contrary, nearly every troop on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan works alongside locals on a daily basis. They meet with tribal leaders, have interpreters embedded with their squads, help build/maintain necessary utilities, and a slew of other projects that put them face-to-face with Iraqis and Afghans. Nearly every soldier or marine that returns from a tour in one of those nations has positive opinions of the general populace. Are there some that don't? Of course, as there are always exceptions to the norm. But the fact is that our troops build positive relationships with the people they are there to protect and help rebuild their country.

No, actually, we don't. We do say that military veterans are more capable leaders, however (and most people, even lifelong civilians, will agree; why else do you think there's a section for military experience on nearly every job application ever printed?). If you'd like to compare those statements with what you said, so you can see the difference, feel free.

_________________

Just shut up now. You don't know a thing about those in the service other than your own preconceived notions. The best thing that EVER happened to me was when I joined the military (over 21 years ago - damn I am old).

If a person serves in a combat arms or support position, completion of basic training should be a requirement for most forms of government support.

Not that I have anything against military sorts, but it is cute to see them get so riled up.

More level-headed under stress indeed!

Maybe I haven't applied to enough jobs, but the only applications that I've seen that ask for military experience are government jobs, and that's just because of veterans preference laws, not some "They're so cool" mindset.

Sometimes it's just too fucking easy.

You can interpret it any way you like, but it's just more elitist bullshit. I'm not disputing there is cooperation and understanding and handholding and swapping spit in the showers and general goodwill between a lot of the military and locals in whatever "shithole" they're deployed in. But don't try to tell me there's no dehumanization of the enemy. You have an evangelical invasion of the military brass and regulations requiring Fox fucking News to be on the televisions in bases, which spends all it's considerable powers dehumanizing not only the rest of the world, but also half of it's own fucking country.

Military makes good leaders. Sure. I can agree with that. They also make excellent fucking basket cases. Not only that, you have a better chance these days of getting some whacko who thinks he's God's chosen messenger to convert by the sword the heathens of the Earth.

It's not baggage, it's experience. In my case, it's not anger but guilt. It's because the vast vast majority of us DIDN'T dehumanize them that causes the "baggage" as you put it. There's no brainwashing going on here. Most of my "baggage" actually stems from significant involvement in cataloging mass grave sites and matching bodies with families. Go look up Srebrenica on Wikipedia. Seriously, do it right now, I'll wait as it's very likely you have no idea what happened there. I do. I understand the futility of war and violence in a way you will likely never possibly understand. I may not be the guy you want reaching out a hand in partnership, but you definitely want a guy like me included in the process.



How do I fail to remember this? I left the military after my commitment was up (6 years) and entered the private sector. I volunteer my time here locally for a few inner city programs to give back after being a poor white kid in Philly. I'm not telling you that you're a lesser person for not doing either of those things. I'm telling you that you'd be a BETTER person for having done so for a year or more. I very often consider the Air Foce the best worst thing I ever did. I'm a better man for it, but I wouldn't wish my experience on anyone. That said, I think whatever experience a person has performing service (and not just military as it's not for everyone), military or civil, will find a part of themselves they might not otherwise have discovered - and be better for it. Maybe then, our politicians would be less career politicians and more the representative civil SERVANTS they were intended to be.

As an aside, if you're gonna spit out the omgkillthegooks blather, don't be offended if you mistakenly think someone is giving you shit for drinking your Starbucks insisting that "you're doing your part" for the USA. Chances are, it's just you, chief. I hope you get over it.



It might have to do with the generalization of "hating some gooks" that might have something do with it, however intended. It's not cute, it's ignorant, but he's free to be a prick if he so chooses.

Having been at both ends of the hiring process, I can tell you it's far more than a veteran's preference clause. And yes, it's pretty much on every application you fill out. Move up a notch and check out Chipotle or Chili's next time

<--- Still trying to figure out why everyone says he works in a restaurant.

Every single job I have ever applied for has had a seperate military experience section involved in the application process, and everything since I've gotten past 21 has been a technical job outside of the government.

Except for one job where I did IT security consulting for a three letter agency that is.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

I'm sorry. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You cannot complain that it's elitist to not equalize veteran and civilization perspective and then make statements from which you have ZERO frame of reference. Once again, you're painting VERY broad strokes here. If anything, your tone and rhetoric have already invalidated any argument you had, even if you had some experience, understanding or solid study to back it up.



One has very little to do with the other. You must think it's a Christian penis party over there, when there's absolutely nothing of the sort. That said, the VERY small minority of command folks who are using various missions to evangelize are a serious problem and not enough is being done to pressure them. In the real world military however (ya know, the shit not sensationalized in the news), we mostly didn't give a fuck about religion, sexual preference or any of that shit. I was an atheist then as much as I am now, and very few people gave a shit. Two of my bunkmates at language school were gay and no one gave two shits. This is my experience, and it's fairly broad. But hey, there's always a Huffington Post wiki article you can reference and get the "facts".



The military doesn't make excellent fucking basket cases. War does. You know, the war manufactured primarily by bureaucrats, and then sold to the military, with no real record of service? Yup, those.

Now we've come full circle, back to what the original topic was in reference to the military!

Two requests:

Elessar please post more.

and

Lets talk about Iran again. I find it very interesting. Some good discussions on it over at bh.tv.

No base or government agency I've visited or worked at has had a 'Fox News' rule. Generally our television is tuned to Headline News or the BBC for their lack of morning shows and fluff pieces.

Deployed is a different story. If you get enough time to sit and watch TV you can bet it's not tuned to a news program for anything but sports highlights.

Regarding Iran I think the supreme leader is regretting his stance given the near revolt he has incited. His position is tenuous with the populace as it is, because it was originally created for one man (Khomeni). The Iranian people have become tired of the non-elected official positions within their government.

I think the draconian measures against the protest rallies will only shift their focus towards work strikes, which will be far more effective anyway.

It's a shame that you have such a thorough disrespect for the men and women who risk their lives to serve this nation.

_________________

I can't see how you can interpret his statement as blanket disrespect.

While I can respect the uniform, there are soldiers who I do not respect -- usually they aren't deserving of said uniform.

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

We should be fair and separate categories here.

1) Nutjob whacko pricks. There's pieces of shit in all areas of life, the military included. The training provided can admittedly make them more dangerous.

2) The "basket cases" that are severely traumatized by their experienced are entitled to a certain level of sympathy and understanding. Not that they shouldn't be held accountable for their actions - they should. But we do owe them the treatment they deserve to overcome a psychological trauma we as a society (regardless if you agree or not) have asked them to endure.

I knew that was coming eventually. I was just wondering who would be the fuckwit in question.

That said I respect the members of the military tremendously. I disrespect the major assholes who think they are superior specimens of humanity because they were in the military, as if every other cog in the nation isn't also whirling away to keep it running. And for full disclosure, I'd have to say 95% of all of those particular jackasses I've gamed, worked, attended class with, or had any other type of association with were marines. Take that however you will.

I don't have any problem with military in positions of leadership or whatever. I have problems with people alluding that people without such service (military or civil) should be lesser members of society.

When did that ever happen in this thread?

Right there.

What? (see below)



It's good to know you're reading the thread and responding intelligently. Are you just bitter because a Marine kicked the shit out of you in a bar while you were being an ass or are you just that insecure about this issue?

No, I never get into fights with marines. I just tell them I'd rather have a sister in a whorehouse than a brother in the marines and they get confused.

You specifically said that if they don't have military or civil service, they shouldn't be a citizen. Maybe in your world that isn't considering them a lesser person. I'm glad I don't live there.

If it were a requirement for citizenship, as it is in many countries, there would be no 'lesser citizens'.

If people understood the government, they'd put it in charge of a lot less.

After this thread, I don't think your lack of service indicates your status as a person. You seem to do well enough on your own to cover that.



Citizenship not meaning basic human rights, or reaffirming your humanity, but specifically right to vote, work for the government, etc. The VAST majority of these roles would be civil service related. An example would be working with the Dept of Health and Human Services, assisting in reducing workload for a year prior to college. Investing in your country, in any capacity, should be required before reaping the rewards, regardless of social status. This is my opinion, partially based on my experience in other parts of the world where civil service is a requirement.

I welcome debate on the topic, and I'm wide open to criticism or discussion beyond "OMG the fucking meatheads think I'm a dickless fuckhole with no rights". Let me help you out here. No one here thinks you're a dickless fuckhole because you didn't serve.

We think you're a dickless fuckhole because you ACT like a dickless fuckhole.

I don't need a debate. Your vision for the country scares me. It's a few votes shy of a junta.

Do you really think that every worthless fuckstick in this country actually deserves to be able to vote or to leech off the government tit?

The government takes care of the people. The people should also take care of the government.

Besides -- what's wrong with taking a single year after high school and working at the goddamn post office?

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

It wasn't really a debate. It was more a weird, out of left field rant about people in the military. I don't think I've actually seen you engage in a real debate. You can go back to being a bitter one-line poster now. ttfn

Agreed with Jox. Sorry for steering this one away, but I really hoped to engage that point of view to get some of idea of what causes it, as I really don't believe it was a serious attempt to troll, no matter how he's trying to spin it now as "baiting".

Obeying the law, being a productive member of the society, paying ones taxes, and contributing to the economy and/or other areas of society IS investing in your country.

Yes

No


The government is taken care of. They are voted for by the populace and their representatives receive an amazing amount of compensation paid for by the taxes of said voters.


What makes working at the post office any more a service to the country than a farmer who raises food for the country? I mean, unless you're suggesting the post office worker be unpaid for his work. And then we're talking indentured servitude or some shit.

Oh, and Elessar, the only baiting I was doing was the sister in a whorehouse line. But come on, got beat up in a bar fight with a marine? Pfft. Who goes to bars anymore unless they're looking for my sister?

Well, not really. Those are bare minimums. Paying the rent. None of that is actually "investing" in the country.

Cow fails to understand your logic.

I'm not sure it's too complex, really. Complex to the point where someone completely misses points made and suggests inconsistency via "convenience of the discussion"? Yea, probably =)

Morality has always been independent of what happenstance laws say, particularly when it comes to the "conviction" of a criminal. The question of potential innocence is something I elaborated on a number of times in the thread - it boils down to weighing potential innocence against the severity of actions taken against a person. Sentencing someone to life in prison is ok I suppose even if there's a 0.5 chance of innocence, but 10 minutes of torture is unacceptable with the same percentage chance.

Is it de-humanizing? That's open to interpretation, really. Are you torturing a person because you hate them and think of them as a lesser individual or less than human? You could conceivably torture someone while accepting the fact that they are just as human as you, and even feeling sorry for them in the process, but knowing that the moral priority is with whatever unacceptable dire situation in which it is already almost certain that information to stop said situation could be attained.

On the other hand, when you specifically suggest things like "they are evil, capable of no good, and are not like us at all and must all be slaughtered" then you are automatically falling into the realm of dehumanization. It's just a little different when you admit it up front.

So really nothing too complex about it, except maybe for someone who is hellbent on spewing crowd-pleasing politically correct one-liners without bothering to think it over for themselves. But at least it falls within Joxur's prescribed and spoon-fed ideology, I know I wouldn't want to bother you so much as to elaborate on your talking point positions =)

So you think of resident aliens as lesser people? The guy with the green card who mows your lawn is a lesser person to you? Wow. Way to put yourself out there as an elitist piece of shit.

_________________