dm1333 wrote:
Not everbody here only arguing the "how". You need to read more closely.
Your definitions of patriotism and nationalism are not correct. Joining the military is serving your country, de facto and de jure
You understand, of course, that by your logic, the Wehrmacht and S.S. were benefitting the people who lived in Germany. Fantastic. And absolutely
wrong. They were
enriching the
government, sir. Nobody but the
government and companies like Volkswagen, Mauser, Heinkel, Mercedes, BMW, Krupp, and all the other Waffenfabriks in Germany, benefitted from people serving in the Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe, and Kriegsmarine. And then, only until the Third Reich crumbled to the ground because it tried to bite off more of the world than it could chew. Am I saying that the men in the U.S. military are baby-butchering Nazis?
No, sir. I am saying that power is power, and that universally, those who love power will always use well-meaning pawns to increase their power and fame. Nor does serving in the military mean that the causes for which the military kills are necessarily just
or beneficial to the causes
or country for which the military proposes to fight! Joining the military can more easily be a
disservice to one's countrymen, rather than a "service." But far too many people do not have the ability to disconnect "the government's foreign policy" from "one's neighbors and homeland." It's all lumped into one, for those people. Far too often, people consider the
government's foreign policy to be "the country," or "the nation."
dm1333 wrote:
My advice would be to stop throwing around big words. Your assertation that nobody is a threat to this country because nobody could invade us and hold ground is ridiculous. What would you call Ground Zero in NYC? Harmless?
Sir, as for my "big words," it's the way I talk. Not trying to impress anyone. I use slang all the time with my friends and colleagues. However, I try to write concisely when I am conveying a point. In order to get the same message across, I can either use a couple of "big words" or a lot of little ones.
What could the
military have done to prevent 9/11, sir? The only solution I can see Washington coming up with is to have a huge military presence in every country all over the world. As it is, that course of action will probably
not endear the indigenous peoples to the U.S. government, and by unwilling association, the people who live under the U.S. government and its dangerous policies.
dm1333 wrote:
You don't really seem to be offering advice here. It seems more like you have an axe to grind. If you want to get a message across you might consider how you sound to others.
I've considered how I sound, and I've gotten quite a bit of positive feedback. And quite a bit of flak. But, as the saying goes, "When you're catching flak, it means you're over the target."
When you say it sounds as though I have an axe to grind, you're right. As I have said before, the axe is reason, and grinding away at flawed logic is how that axe is sharpened. By such discussions, I'm able to grind away at the dullness, notches and burrs on my own axe, and those of other people.
dm1333 wrote:
Pigspitter was kind enough to let you know that his mind was made up so do him a favor and lay off. I knew from the age of 14 or 15 that I was going into the military and nothing was going to change that. Twenty four years later I'm still convinced it was the right decision but I would not expect you to understand that, in my case or in Pigspitters.
I said nothing to Pigspitter after he said his mind was made up. As for whether or not it was the right decision, I don't understand that it was, you're right. But I have solid reasons for my lack of understanding, and I'm sure you have your reasons, too.
-Sans Authoritas
