For any issue, including this one, it is more about one's stance on the particular issue than it is about left or right or liberal or conservative. Sure, generally one group may more likely lean one way or the other, but for specifics looking at individuals and their ideologies is the most accurate means at determining who wants what and cares about what.
With that in mind, the pro-war politicians are who I am speaking of. People like McCain are certainly in this and I used the term big government because big government is needed in order to fund and run these sorts of massive wars. Historically, countries with bigger and more powerful governments have been the ones that are more likely to fight wars as well because the common man usually isn't very interested in it (atleast not before they are fearmongered which is often the case)
With that in mind, the pro-war politicians are who I am speaking of. People like McCain are certainly in this and I used the term big government because big government is needed in order to fund and run these sorts of massive wars. Historically, countries with bigger and more powerful governments have been the ones that are more likely to fight wars as well because the common man usually isn't very interested in it (atleast not before they are fearmongered which is often the case)
Hmmmm ... I had to think about this a little. Is it big Government, or big military that works for success with wars? I am no expert, but as far as I can see in the US the military has to be the one Department that is the best equipped and the best organized, also has the most qualified leaders. Obama is technically the Chief in charge, but if he were really to run the military it would be totally scary for me.
Well let me ask you one question: how is the military that well funded? Why does it exist and run the way it does? Through government legislation of course.Hmmmm ... I had to think about this a little. Is it big Government, or big military that works for success with wars? I am no expert, but as far as I can see in the US the military has to be the one Department that is the best equipped and the best organized, also has the most qualified leaders. Obama is technically the Chief in charge, but if he were really to run the military it would be totally scary for me.
Now don't get me wrong, I am all for national security and a strong military- I am just not for sending our young men abroad to fight in battles we shouldn't be fighting. War always takes more though, more than what national security takes. It requires a lot more money and a lot more government. As long as our people are safe, I don't see a need for war- the only circumstance when I see it as ok is when we are not the aggressor- when we are attacked or declared war upon.
Questions on the morality of war aside, it's a fairly sad situation.
From my understanding of it, I think that a lot of it stems from the post-Vietnam treatment of the troops. They were just kinda turned loose for the most part, which was pretty bad considering the post traumatic stress disorder that a fair amount had. This made it harder to get back into the normal swing and then it's just a spiral. That's at least the scenario coming to mind.
There is a sentiment to care more for the troops. I think the post-Vietnam treatment is generally seen as atrocious. There are more efforts to pay for education, provide healthcare, therapy, etc.
That obviously won't change what has already happened though. Just sort of a "learn from our past mistakes" thing.
From my understanding of it, I think that a lot of it stems from the post-Vietnam treatment of the troops. They were just kinda turned loose for the most part, which was pretty bad considering the post traumatic stress disorder that a fair amount had. This made it harder to get back into the normal swing and then it's just a spiral. That's at least the scenario coming to mind.
There is a sentiment to care more for the troops. I think the post-Vietnam treatment is generally seen as atrocious. There are more efforts to pay for education, provide healthcare, therapy, etc.
That obviously won't change what has already happened though. Just sort of a "learn from our past mistakes" thing.
The American Government hasn't followed your advice, then.
Plus, the UK has been dragged into it. Mainly because Tony Blair acted in the same capacity in relation to America as a poodle to its master. Oh, the irony!
MYP, i presume, means that a war and large military requires extensive support from the taxpayer.
Personally, i hold liberty of far greater importance and relevance to the individual, than "security".
It just shows how little "respect" some "Americans" have for the military.
Well, i'm anti-war myself. I'm just slightly incredulous that retired soldiers can just be left to rot the way they have been.
Yeah I renember how the vets. were treated when they came home from the Vietnam War. And many of them were drafted. But the "draft dodgers" were treated like heroes. Jimmy Carter sure liked them.
Hate to say it but, this country has really gone soft. The old joke about enemies landing on the beaches in Florida and wanting to negotiate to save Georgia is coming close to being true.
In the first and second world wars, in Britain, the Quakers refused to fight for religious reasons. The point is, that most people that refuse to fight, do so for moral reasons, not because they're cowards.
If i was told to go and die for my Government in Afghanistan, i'd tell them to go and do something explicit and physiologically impossible, if you get my drift.
In Germany, there is (or actually, was) a system where, when you finish secondary school, you get drafted for military training. And you can get called to the military at any time. My dad is a pacifist, as am i, and refused. They allow this and instead he did public service for the training time.
Jimmy Carter did more for the "dodgers" than he did for the soldiers. And in my opinion that was too wrong for me to ever forgive.
As old and sick as I am now, I would be proud to fight (even if I knew I would die) for the country I grew up in. To me it is an honor to serve when you are called. But if the crowd we have in charge now stays much longer I might run too.
I don't feel comfortable with going off to die for any Government, be it German or British. I am completely disgusted at the idea of killing another human being, except in defence. Even then, i would try to disable them.
I don't see that there is any truly valid excuse for a war. Imperialist policy just doesn't cut it for me. If one nation attacks another, the aggressor is at fault. In my book. War in defense, but not in attack/retaliation is justifiable. The victims are defending themselves.
Call me a hippy, call me what you will. I just don't see "for Blood and Empire" as valid.
I'm also not comfortable with killing people, but I imagine once you are out in the field, and see what these terrorists are capable off, I would be of a completely different mind. That part is what really worries me though. One would never be same after that.
The "disable them" thing sounds good. But that is like fighting a gun with a rock. They will be fighting to kill you. And if they live they will fight another day.
Our military now has so many things to do that they are not trained for. Now they are expected to install electric and water systems. Build the damn place back better than ever. Their job is to destroy things and kill bad people. But now they are talking about reading people their rights and arresting them! What kind of pansies are we turning into. We now have a bunch of bad guys that should have been killed where we found them. But since we did not do that we have to get them attorneys and treat them like citizens. They have shown us how they treat us.
Our military now has so many things to do that they are not trained for. Now they are expected to install electric and water systems. Build the damn place back better than ever. Their job is to destroy things and kill bad people. But now they are talking about reading people their rights and arresting them!
What kind of pansies are we turning into. We now have a bunch of bad guys that should have been killed where we found them. But since we did not do that we have to get them attorneys and treat them like citizens. They have shown us how they treat us.
The "disable them" thing sounds good. But that is like fighting a gun with a rock. They will be fighting to kill you. And if they live they will fight another day.
Our military now has so many things to do that they are not trained for. Now they are expected to install electric and water systems. Build the damn place back better than ever. Their job is to destroy things and kill bad people. But now they are talking about reading people their rights and arresting them!
"Disable them" can be anything to a skilful disarming of their sidearm through one means or another to mowing their legs off with an assault rifle. It is not necessarily such a large disadvantage. I'm merely saying, if i have the chance, i'd rather NOT kill them, as i am defending myself with the weapon of my choice.
It is not the US Military's job to rebuild Afghanistan. Just as it is not the US Military's job to police the world. It creates more problems than it solves.
Soldiers' jobs are not to "destroy things and kill bad people". Their job is to "destroy things and kill people".
Perhaps the whole point of the lawyers thing (if indeed it is true - i have not been informed as such) is perhaps out to prove the US Army's occupation of Afghan soil is marginally preferable to that of the Talibans?
Similar threads
