"The Static Drinking Game" - or - "Why Should I Support the Military?"

SEVENPERCENT

Friday, February 13, 2004 3:34 PM (P)

Quote:

---

. I don't really see how you can support the troops and NOT their mission. Its a bit like telling a pipe fitter that you like him as a person, but think pipe fitting in and of itself is some kind of evil. In the pipe fitter's case, it is likely to have any kind of impact on his ability to do his job, and even if it does, it ain't that big a deal.

---

Not the same thing- You cannot concievably compare pipefitting with killing people, no matter how cute you want the metaphor to be- You can easily support the man, not the job- In the military, there is a chain of command, which you must follow, and the orders are given from the top down based on appointed folks (the topmost being the one the majority elected, right or wrong, idiot or not) - To say you support them and not the job means you support THEM, and want them to be safe, and kill who they need to kill and come home again asap, and work in your own country to insure that the decision to have them somewhere is changed-
The 'pipefitter' metaphor is BS- He is doing the job, he makes the decisions, HE can quit- So if pipefitting is bad, he might just be making the wrong life choice- The soldier does not have that option (he cant just go 'I think this is a bad job' and quit), therefore, you can support him (the soldier) and not the job- I've done a lot of jobs I didnt like, but I always did them 100%, and it's the same with them- I dont like what they are doing, but I expect 100% out of them regardless till it's time for them to come home- I have friends in Iraq, they know I want them home safe and want them to do whatever they have to do to get the job done and stay safe- But they also know that I think the decision to invade was a bad call, so I write letters and speak out- It might sound like a contradiction, but, hey, as we say around here, 'some people juggle geese'-


------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

The soldier does not have that option

---

Except for the fact that we have an all-volunteer military. There's no draft or required service. Every man and woman in our armed forces is serving by their own choice, knowing full well the sole and exact purpose the military fulfills. And I, for one, applaud each and every one of them.

I believe the pipefitter analogy is valid.

No power in the 'verse can stop me.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

The moment an individual completes the oath of servive, they have abrogated numerous of thier rights . . . including the right to speak ill of the governement and the mission they may find themselves performing.

The fact that this war is on, and it's a bad mission, in no way causes me to look down onthe troops. the all volounteer gig doesn't mean that the military or the people within it can pick and choose it's missions. The commander in chief is ultimitly responsible to the american people and it is not the soldiers job to tell the CiC or the american people how and where things should be done. They take orders, not give them . . .

It's easy to support the troops yet deplore the mission. It's really the only course of dissent I can follow, since I myself am a vet, from a family of vets.
Others may not have this boundary . . .

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

You cannot compare ANYTHING to killing people. Killing someone is likely the one act which can completely and totally separate someone from the pale. There are other acts that may seem of this life-shaking type, but they are mainly sanctioned-falling in love, childbirth and so on. This not to draw a comparison between killing and childbirth.

Should you support the military? I think you mean those you communicate with, specifically.

Look, the reverse of not supporting our fellow citizens abroad is to despise them. There does seem to be some kind of growth involved in the fact that returning servicemen are not reviled as they were in Vietnam. The fallout from that kind of response is still happening, now.

Perhaps our perceptions are attuned to the fact that we now know who put the soldiers there and those are the people who deserve our criticism. Great. Write some letters if that is your deal.

It is quite myopic to think that the generic "you" has some specific and constructive advise to someone humping around in a rifle platoon in the mountains.

Should you support the military, i.e. the Armed Forces?

Supporting the military is a vague concept. The Army Materiel Command does that just fine. What you mean is, do you or can you be civil to someone who is actively engaged in the practice of slaying people because our government condones this?

Form my experience, soldiers are like any other people, some of them you will like and some not, your mileage may vary. With the rather HUGE exception that they are members of a team and must, MUST be very, very tuned into what they are doing. The penalities for inattention or poor soldiering are much more extreme than a burst pipe or backed up sewage, obviously. Not only that, you can do everything correctly and still wind up in serious straits or worse.


There is a culture therein that must be understood before the Hooahs or Urrahs or Alliantes can be viewed as cheerleading, although sometimes they are.

So for the one idea, read up on some statecraft, on the other try looking into some of the soldier level accounts of combat. They may or may not help, but you will certainly be wiser for doing so.

I will happily provide a bibliography if you like.

"Could you be more specific"?

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeptus:

Quote:

---

The soldier does not have that option

---

Except for the fact that we have an all-volunteer military. There's no draft or required service. Every man and woman in our armed forces is serving by their own choice, knowing full well the sole and exact purpose the military fulfills. And I, for one, applaud each and every one of them.

I believe the pipefitter analogy is valid.

No power in the 'verse can stop me.

---

You're right, there is no draft or required service, but you volunteer to served based on the belief that your country will put you to work in situations that are Right (with a capital R) and Justified- But getting out of the military is NOT volunteer- You ink a contract that says you will serve x period of time, not one that says 'if you think this place deserves attacked you can go here, if not stay home'-
The 'pipefitter' can say, "I dont like this job, I cant handle it, I quit" and no one gets killed (just a little basement flooding)- The soldier says "I dont like this job, I cant handle it," and the superior says, "too bad boy, you got 3 more years"- And should the soldier get out by some means, his skills that might have saved someone might be what gets someone killed-

And it's not that I cant see the 'pipefitter' as a metaphor (I understand your point, really), it's also that I just dont like that metaphor personally- I dont like trivial things compared to death, that's all- It's like when a buddy of mine always says (and please lets not get into this one, just using an example) 'Bush lied about WMD, but Clinton lied about sex' - I HATE that, they are both lies and liars, sure, but one lie doesnt create BODIES-

------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Well. You certainly had a great deal to say. And you said it eloquently as usual. I may not agree with it all, but as always I respect your right to your opinion. What the hell is the First Amendment for, anyway?

Speaking of that...

First - if you're going to talk about September 11, talk about September 11. 911 is the emergency hotline to the police. 911 is not, nor has it ever been the day I watched two giant buildings on American soil disintegrate over and over and over again on national TV. 911 is not the day I was glued to the NASDAQ Web site, watching as their stock market research editors - my peers at the time - post SCREAMING headlines about what was happening right down the street, and Washington D.C.

Second. Have you ever seen what happens to a civilian war survivor during a thunderstorm? My best friend was 13 years old when the civil war between Christian-controlled East Beirut and the Muslim faction in West Beirut started in 1975. That city is still in the midst of reconstruction, and she's only been able to go home to visit family twice since I've known her - twice in 16 years. I won't go into the politics or logistics of all of that - frankly, that part didn't touch me so much as seeing a grown woman jump out of her skin because a clap of thunder overhead happens to make the same sound that bombs did when she heard them coming down outside the apartment she grew up in. She's told me about how four of the five members of her family would lean in to light their cigarettes from the same trembling candle during those bombings.

The American Embassy in Beirut was bombed April 18, 1983. The American Marine military barracks in Beirut was bombed later that same year, October 23, 1983. And there has been more acts of terror against the U.S. at our posts in other parts of the world both before and since. We should have been doing something about terrorism long before September 11, and as horrible as it was, I'm afraid it was only a matter of time before someone found a way to bring the terror HOME.

Do I support war? No. War should be the absolute, final resort to any situation, avoided at all costs. I hate that my friend had to experience the horrors of it. I also hate that now, because of the War against Terror, she gets suspicious looks. She's Armenian, but she looks Middle-Eastern, hence the unwarranted looks. It's even worse for her brother, who lives in Tulsa, Oklahoma now. He was sent out of Beirut as a teenager in order to keep from being "recruited" to fight.

Do I support the troops? YES. Why? Is it because of Static and how I'd like to see his wedding pictures sometime in the near future? You betcha. Is it because during World War II and Korea my father served in the U.S. Navy? Actually, I think about that every time I stand up with him as he salutes the flag during Memorial Day services. Not supporting the troops would be disrespecting them, which would lead me to disrespect him.

The other huge part of it is this. My best friend's son was born in Doha, Qatar, April 13, 1986, 11 years to the day that the civil war began in Beirut. I've known him since he was 2, watched him grow up, made him the subject of one of my best pieces of artwork. He'll be 18 this year, and this June he will be joining the Marines.

Now ask me why I support the troops. I'll take my two shots of Cuervo now, please.

Nora

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

They take orders, not give them . . .

---

But it was the individual's choice to put themselves into this position. You can't enter the military without expecting to be directly involved in combat, or indirectly supporting it in some way. The job of the military is to fight wars, and in so doing, kill lots of people. Everyone who is an employee of the Department of Defense is either directly, or indirectly involved in killing people because the core of our military are the Combat Arms divisions. All other divisions and jobs only exist to support the core.

I also think you guys have missed the analogy that was used. No one is comparing pipefitting to killing, that would be ridiculous. Perhaps Drakon's comparison was too specific. What if we said that a person has Profession X, and you meet this person and say, "I think you're a really great fellow, but I think your profession is straight up evil and I hate it." You'd be pretty lucky if you didn't come away with a bloody nose and a black eye. Even if you were just commenting about one particular job (within the profession) that this person was doing sure wouldn't do a whole lot for their morale.

You see, you can't say that the job is evil, but that the person is good because good people don't make a profession out of doing evil things. Good people do good jobs, like being a policeman, fireman or soldier, and evil people do evil jobs like being a thief, arsonist or sadistic, murderous dictator.

So if you denigrate our troops' mission, you're only tearing down their morale. If you denigrate their profession, you're denigrating them. If you really feel that deposing a man like Saddam is evil (I can't for the life of me figure that one out), you could at least wait until the troops got home before you started casting aspersions.

No power in the 'verse can stop me.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I'm really going to try and not write a dissertation here....

I do not believe that we should have gone into Iraq. It was a cynical, political (as in domestic. As in approval rating. As in election.), economic (as in Oil) move, which was reviled by the majority of the 'civilized' world. The fact that it has beneficial spin-offs (like removing the mad despot, Saddam from power; like presenting a strong front to potentially threatening nations; like potentially [though by no means certainly!] reducing the degree to which we are beholden to the Saudis, and thus strengthening our hand in negotiations [etc.] with them) must be seen as secondary to the decidedly NON-righteous reasons for going in.

I DO believe we should be in Afghanistan. The toppling of a dangerously fanatical, aggressive regime which DIRECTLY aided and abetted those who did us serious harm was imperative. Further, sticking around to finish the job, and support that nation's efforts to establish a more adaptive form of self-governance is the right thing to do. Indeed, it is a legitimate expression of a policy which, had it been implemented before, might have nipped much of the terroristic campaigns against the US in the bud. By contrast, previous policies of going in and aiding that group, blasting the other group, then bugging out when the immediate aims had been accomplished arguably sowed the seeds which came to abominable bloom on a certain Tuesday morning in 2001.

None of this is a Soldier's (or Marine's or Seaman's, or Airman's) sphere of influence. The ancient Hindu text [actually, pre-Hindu...but that's another conversation) the Bagavad-Gita depicts the warrior king, Arjuna, poised on the brink of a huge battle, agonizing about the implications of what he is about to do. At that moment, his charioteer (the god, Krishna in disguise, as it happens), freezes time and walks him through the Very Big Picture...I won't get into that picture (see earlier "not a dissertation" comment [has that ship already sailed?] ). The upshot (pardon the pun) is that a warrior's proper duty is to do what he is doing, fully, authentically, humbly, and skillfully, to embody the duty/path (dharma) which he is positioned to implement. His duty is to carry out his mission with 100% of his being, to hold nothing in reserve...not only because that tends to get one dead, but because the surrendering of Self (all the niggling little second thoughts and ego trips) to the task at hand is the highest expression of being. It is, in fact, central to Joseph Campbell's definition of a Hero. A warror's path is to put all that he (pardon sexism of generic pronoun) is into what he does...however horrific a moment's reflection would reveal that thing to be.

It is up to the leaders who send warriors into battle (and the people who [supposedly] elect them) to choose righteous missions. For warriors to arrogate to themselves the task of making policy is a sure path to chaos, weakness, dishonor, and, ultimately defeat.

That said, a warrior still has choice. If one's CO commands one to burn a village of non-combatants, then a warror/hero can choose to surrender Self to the task of refusing the order (upon pain of death, imprisonment, and pariah status if not later vindicated). A moment's hesitation in such a situation would leave one open to being convinced (moral defeat), in much the same way that hesitation in battle leaves one open to being mowed down by the enemy. IMHO, the British officer who refused Wesley Clarke's (ill-considered, ego-driven) order to block Russian planes from touching down in Cosovo (and thus potentially triggering hostilities with Russia!) acted heroically. Similarly, when John Kerry was stationed in Viet Nam, he carried out his duty. It was after he came home that he spoke out against the war. Heroic.

In this vein, I think that STATIC and all his compatriots amply derserve our full, unalloyed, unapologetic support...whatever we may think of the policies which place them on the battlefield. For them to approach their gr

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Dear Tash,

I don't know where to start, so I guess I'll start with what comes to mind first. I understand what your saying, and I've had some of the very same thoughts you have. I personally deplore war and all it stands for. I hate the thought of killing people merely because of a clash of beliefs. What can I say, I'm a humanitarian, and from what it sounds like your are too. Isn't that why most people don't like war/killing? As a humanitarian, one needs to care about all people, including soldiers. As a humanitarian myself, I want to see Static come home safe and sound, and that includes mentally sound. If quoting Firefly as he does his soldier activities helps him keep his sanity, than quote away. Heck, about killing there even Mal's quote, "If someone tries to kill you, you try and kill 'em right back" that's hard not to think about it's literal meaning. So I say, support our troops because they are people too. You talk about them choosing not to fight and many have. The numbers of soldiers who have commited suicide while on duty in Iraq is staggering. The number of soldiers who have gone AWOL while on R&R is also staggering. Even though "breaking down a solder to rebuild him" is a neccessary part of the job, many still have a brain when they're done with basic training (if they started with one), and they are ALL still people. You say military people freak you out, I think that's just your own personal stereotypes getting in the way of your perceptions. Have you ever been assaulted by a military person? How about a non- military person? Has a military person ever threaten you? How about a non-military person. My point is, many people kill without ever going into the military, and not everyone who goes into the military will kill somebody. As far as hooping and hollering about the "joy of killing", I guarantee that deep down, they don't want to, and they nobody certainly wants to just for the mere act of it. The problem is, they don't have time to think about it that way, they have a job to do, and thinking too much is just going to put thier life and the lives of their fellow soldiers in jeopardy. When they get home, they'll have plenty of time to think about it then, and that's when we need to support them the most. That's one (of the many) reasons I deplore pres. Bush so much, he doesn't seem to care about the troops that do come home physically safe. As I understand it, he's cut program funding for returning vets, and that's wrong. In the end, if you don't like war, get out there and VOTE in November, get your friends/coworkers and family to vote too. That's about the end of my little diatribe. Hopefully you haven't scared Static off because I happen to think he's a great guy and diserves his fair share (maybe more) of respect, both as a soldier and a Browncoat.

-The SpAz

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

G:

I *completely* agree! Being in battle is not about you. If you start thinking about you and the situation you are in, you falter, you hesitate , and next thing you know, not only will you be wearing a bodybag, but so will a couple of your buddies next to you. Fighting a war isn't about you, your loved ones at home, the mission, or the ideals behind it; when you are waist high in muck and crap is exploding all around you, it's all about the guy next to you. It's all about your buddies - it's duty and honor to your group. It's about getting your ass and your buddies' asses out of this one and maybe making it thru the next one too.

Like Noocyte said, being a soldier is not about being psychopathic killing of human beings, it's about putting everything that you are, your training and your craft, into what you are doing. Everything that the military teaches you is about keeping yourself alive - yeah, part of it involves killing or disabling people who are trying to get your ass dead. A fine drill-sergeant once said "You are *not* here to give your lives for your country. You *are* here to make sure that your opponent has every chance he has to do it for his."

Staying alive.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:
If their use of Firefly quotes contributes one little bit to bringing Static and his comrades home safe, I'm for it.

I know that the little catchphrases my unit in Vietnam shared brought us closer. They allowed us to express our mutual concern without getting all gushy about it. During rocket attacks or infiltration alerts, thinking about "us" instead of "me" kept us all safer.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

---

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

It was a cynical, political (as in domestic. As in approval rating. As in election.)

---

Except that the whole process was started two full years before the election, and only a little over a year after the worst attack on our soil since December 7th, 1941. If it were just a political machination, they would likely have waited until Election Day was more than just a gleam in the electorate's eye.

Quote:

---

The fact that it has beneficial spin-offs (like removing the mad despot, Saddam from power; like presenting a strong front to potentially threatening nations; like potentially [though by no means certainly!] reducing the degree to which we are beholden to the Saudis, and thus strengthening our hand in negotiations [etc.] with them) must be seen as secondary to the decidedly NON-righteous reasons for going in.

---

You don't see freeing an entire nation from the insane grip of a murderous, sadistic tyrant as righteous enough in and of itself? Also, we have made definite gains in our "negotiations" with N. Korea and Iran over their possession of nuclear weapons. We may be operating a little bit differently from the way we used to do things, but that does not imply that our methods now are necessarily wrong, nor that our methods before were necessarily right.

The times, they are a-changin'.

No power in the 'verse can stop me.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Noocyte:
I loathe the current administration with every fiber of my being. I cringe at the thought of snuffing out a human consciousness. I am proud to bursting of STATIC and his compatriots.

---

Thank you for summing up my feelings no neatly. I come from a line of warriors that have served this country since before it declared independence.

I served 10 years. Between us, my brothers and sisters served 40+ years. My little sister is medically retired from the Army after a horrific injury that had her erroneously reported as dead -- the two year battle to get that corrected at Ft. Knox is another story.

I remember the bombing in Beirut. I was stationed three miles from RAF Mildenhall (home of the 2nd largest military mortuary in Europe).

The Marines who were escorting their blood brothers all the way home to turn them over to the care of relatives for burial were there too.

There was nothing we could do cure the pain behind their eyes so, we did what we could. It wasn't much. We ensured that every Marine had someone to dance with. Imagine dancing a slow dance with a man who is trembling like a kitten in a snowstorm. Imagine running your hair along his cheek to wipe away the tears, the whole time pretending that this big Marine isn't crying like a baby.

Do NOT think that I do not fully support, defend and trust our military. They deserve our fullest support.

Do NOT think that I don't despise Dubya and his whole rat's nest of lying zealots. I see them cutting medical support to veterans. I see them reducing pensions. I have YET to see the President at a military funeral.

I am furious that the Disabled Veterans of America are not being given full access to the wounded in hospitals when they need compassion, understanding and information the most. Dubya hasn't answered their letter of inquiry.

I want nothing more than to see George Bush and the Cabal that started this mess up on war crimes charges.

Our administration sucks. I have no doubt that my vocal opposition to their war will get me on a 'no fly list'. A list that is so secret, you cannot find out who put you on it and there's no way to get off.

I love my military. I want them home. Safe. Secure. Sound. Whatever they have to do to accomplish that, I'll be behind them.

What makes me cry is the knowledge that at RAF Mildenhall, someone is dancing with a man or woman who is trembling like a kitten in a blizzard.

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I actually have to dash soon, so pardon if I don't follow up on this quick reply for a while...

Quote:

---

It was a cynical, political (as in domestic. As in approval rating. As in election.)

Except that the whole process was started two full years before the election, and only a little over a year after the worst attack on our soil since December 7th, 1941. If it were just a political machination, they would likely have waited until Election Day was more than just a gleam in the electorate's eye.

---

The fact that this 'process' was begun so far ahead of time does not contradict my point. The opposite, actually, in that it suggests that the notion of going into Iraq was a foregone conclusioin before there was a substantive link between Al Quaeda and the Baathist regime (not that there really is one now, mind you).

And, don't underestimate how far in advance an administration will start thinking about gathering political capital for an election (not to mention that congressional elections were in the much more near term at the time).

Quote:

---

You don't see freeing an entire nation from the insane grip of a murderous, sadistic tyrant as righteous?

---

As I'd said, I see that as a felicitous spin-off from the much shadier central goals of the campaign. If I inadvertently save lives in the course of committing an immoral act, this does not make the act any less immoral. I'm pleased as punch that Saddam is history! But conducting foreign policy as the current administration has done, IMHO, only increases the chance of history repeating itself!

Quote:

---

Also, we have made definite gains in our "negotiations" with N. Korea and Iran over their possession of nuclear weapons.

---

Iran is an open question, as some change has been brewing there for some time. But I have insufficient data to render a judgment on any connection between our war in Iraq and the goings-on there.

As for N. Korea, there is much to suggest that the whole "lookie here! I've got nukes!" thing was a strategem to bring other nations to the table on quesions of aid and trade, having nothing to do with our Iraq war. Not to mention that the way we toppled the government/military in Iraq is in no way comparable to the world of hurt we'd be getting into if we endeavored to take on the N. Korean military!

Quote:

---

We may be operating a little bit differently from the way we used to do things, but that does not imply that our methods now are necessarily wrong, nor that our methods before were necessarily right.

---

It remains to be seen how differently we are operating (one of the chief questions being one of follow-through, for which the jury is still out...though Afghanistan is a glimmer of hope there). An important point is that the degree to which the current administratiion acts to alienate the rest of the world in its actions is an ominous sign for starving the roots of anti-Americanism, and so avertig the need for a War On terror.

Sorry, gotta flee. Glad we're keeping this civil; I make it a policy NEVER to get in on political threads on the OB; I don't do ad hominem

Keep flyin'!






Department of Redundancy Department

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Adeptus:

you've got my full agreement on that one. The military is an instrument of our country's political process. How it is used exactly has changed over the years, but basically it is an extension of diplomacy. No matter how mad we think or see the administration in how we use our military, we need to keep reminding ourselves that what you see is about 10% of the story. Our country and many good working men and women negotiate, discuss, implore others to act kindly (yeah, certainly in many instances, it's with a certain self interest) to their people, different people/rulers respond differently to different words. If kind words and other economic motivations don't work, then it might degenerate into the threat of force; and sometimes you actually have to use it. In the end, these are all tools that anyone has before them. If it's not a tool that you would employ in your everyday life, that's fine too - not many people do. But realize that that's what state craft is. It's not about, "you do this or I'll bust your nose in". Many Many other avenues have already been explored (that you prolly don't and will never hear about) before the use or show of force.

Moving troops and stationing troops are very very expensive and it takes a long time to move an Army around - all of the logistics can take 6 to 9 months. It's not an easy thing to do and you bet that it's not done on the drop of a hat.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeptus:

Quote:

---

It was a cynical, political (as in domestic. As in approval rating. As in election.)

---

Except that the whole process was started two full years before the election, and only a little over a year after the worst attack on our soil since December 7th, 1941. If it were just a political machination, they would likely have waited until Election Day was more than just a gleam in the electorate's eye.

Quote:

---

The fact that it has beneficial spin-offs (like removing the mad despot, Saddam from power; like presenting a strong front to potentially threatening nations; like potentially [though by no means certainly!] reducing the degree to which we are beholden to the Saudis, and thus strengthening our hand in negotiations [etc.] with them) must be seen as secondary to the decidedly NON-righteous reasons for going in.

---

You don't see freeing an entire nation from the insane grip of a murderous, sadistic tyrant as righteous enough in and of itself? Also, we have made definite gains in our "negotiations" with N. Korea and Iran over their possession of nuclear weapons. We may be operating a little bit differently from the way we used to do things, but that does not imply that our methods now are necessarily wrong, nor that our methods before were necessarily right.

The times, they are a-changin'.

No power in the 'verse can stop me.

---

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

The fact that this 'process' was begun so far ahead of time does not contradict my point.

---

I rather think it does. Look I'll grant you that it's not impossible to find a politician wagging the dog as it were, but in order to justify the accusation we need some sort of solid, concrete evidence to back it up (otherwise it's just libel.) In the case of President Bush, despite the fact that labeling him a warmonger is wildly popular amongst certain circles, if we examine his approach to armed conflict, we find that it is nothing but measured and restrained. Even after September 11th, Bush led our nation, and much of the world, calmly into the field of battle to exact justice on those who attack our land. When, with great foresight, he discerned the need to eliminate another growing threat in the Middle East, he also calmly led our nation and many of the world's nations to battle in Iraq.

Quite frankly, I feel we spent too much time waiting on Iraq and this is why we're having difficulty finding the kind of evidence that we expected. However, it also demonstrates that Bush is not a warmonger as some would like to suggest. Instead it shows that Bush is a man of peace, dedicated to resolution, who uses the tool of the military, which we have place at his disposal, as a last resort.

When you take the above into consideration with the fact that the actual war itself was begun more than a year prior to Election Day, and that the process was begun several months before that. If you also consider war did not save Bush's father from losing his encumbent seat, and the fact that this particular war was rather unpopular with many voters, it becomes very difficult to write off Operation Enduring Freedom as a political maneuver.

Quote:

---

As I'd said, I see that as a felicitous spin-off from the much shadier central goals of the campaign.

---

But, again, on what do you base your conclusion that the goals really were shady? What substantive evidence do you have to back up your allegation? Or have you prejudicially decided that since Bush is a bad man, he must have gone to war for all the wrong reasons?

No power in the 'verse can stop me.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ManiacNumberOne:
And Gunnrunner... N Korea and many other countries which the U.S. won't attack already have WMD and our attacks on other less capable countries, like Iraq, have done nothing to deter them from making more WMD and even taunting us to come and try to disarm them.

---

Not completely true. In the past 3 years several sales of major arms have fallen thou. For example a Russian Aircraft carrier was sold with the stipulation that it would not be use for military purposes. This carrier sale would have destabilized the whole Far East. What helped stop it, the fact that the US would sell weapons to nations it would threaten that could blow it out of the water! Iran has not put in any additional orders for Submarines and Supercavatating weapons, why because the US wouldn’t stand for such a threat and we would cripple any nation's ecomomy who would sell them such weapons.

The only nations that seems to be selling weapons hand over fist and fueling potentional global chaos is France and Germany. Scorpine' and Type 212 SSKs to several nations. Older subs to Pakistan and India. Roland SAMs, Helicopter dipping sonar, even Carriers.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Even after September 11th, Bush led our nation, and much of the world, calmly into the field of battle to exact justice on those who attack our land.

---

Hmm. I don't remember attacking Saudi Arabia, as 15 of the 19 highjackers were from there.

Quote:

---

I feel we spent too much time waiting on Iraq and this is why we're having difficulty finding the kind of evidence that we expected.

---

Spent too much time doing what? There were U.N. inspectors all over Iraq, and when they weren't getting delayed by misleading or wrong U.S. intelligence they weren't finding anything. Why? Because as we're finding out now, Iraq didn't have anything. If the inspectors would've had 6 months to a year of time, they would've reached the same conclusions as we are arriving at now, without the loss of several hundred U.S. service men and woman and the countless loss of Iraqi lives.

Quote:

---

he also calmly led our nation and many of the world's nations to battle in Iraq

---

Who? Us, Brittain and about a thousand troops from Australia? That's many?

All other political motivations aside, I think if Bush was a patient man, he would've waited until the U.N. Inspectors came back from Iraq either saying A)"Saddam is not cooperating" or B)"We have some evidence that he is desparately trying to reconstitute his WMD program and at some time in the future could have some." Nothing like that was being said about the inspections.

-The SpAz

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Iraq is not yet free. It is an occupied territory.
Granted we are more benovlent than the previous occupier, but none the less it is not our country yet we control it.

When we leave Iraq there will be a civil war. The Arabs hate the Kurds, the Shi'ites hate the Sunni and everyone hates the Ba'aath. (could be I am a little bit wrong with these, the point is Iraq's population is violent, armed, willing to die and unwilling to compromise.)

Plus we are starting to be stingy with the reconstruction money.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Hmm. I don't remember attacking Saudi Arabia, as 15 of the 19 highjackers were from there.

---

That's because the Taliban was operating in Afghanistan, with the aid and sanction of the government there. Not in Saudi Arabia with the aid of their government. While there are some improvements that can be made in our relationship with Saudi Arabia, I hardly see how attacking their country, because a few of its people happened to be members of the guilty organization, (which was operating without her aid or sanction) would help in that endeavor.

Also, we only took military action in Afghanistan because the government there refused to turn over bin Laden. Even a guilty government won't be attacked if they cooperate.

Quote:

---

If the inspectors would've had 6 months to a year of time

---

A popular theory to be sure, but the statements of Hans Blix, members of the UNSC, Congressmen and former Presidents of our nation, all indicate that they believed that Saddam was still in possession of, and pursuing programs to create, weapons of mass destruction. It's funny how all their tunes changed so suddendly. I mean for twelve full years they were unsatisfied as to the nature of Saddam's cooperation with inspections then, almost over night, they sincerely decide that "Hey, maybe he really was telling the truth." Somehow I doubt it.

I believe that many of the WMDs that Saddam had were destroyed and/or moved during the time wasted at the United Nations.

Quote:

---

Who? Us, Brittain and about a thousand troops from Australia? That's many?

---

Don't forget the Polish!

It's true that only a handful of nations sent troops during the initial period of combat (more have since sent security forces), but we can't discount the aid and comfort that 30+ other nations gave to us in our mission. Boots on the ground are important, but so are the rights to use bases, and to fly over air space and so on. Even just to stand beside the United States to show your support for this action is a welcomed form of support.

No power in the 'verse can stop me.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I could go on and on and on about this subject, but I won't. It's all been said quite a few times already. So, I'll just make the one comment.

Quote:

---

What kind of friend would I be to let an honest opinion come between us?

---

Static, you, sir, are a class act. I'm glad, however peripherally and distantly, to know you. Come home in one piece, and thank you for what you do.

_______________
"Yep. That's a cow fetus."

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fortunatus:
I could go on and on and on about this subject, but I won't. It's all been said quite a few times already. So, I'll just make the one comment.

Quote:

---

What kind of friend would I be to let an honest opinion come between us?

---

Static, you, sir, are a class act. I'm glad, however peripherally and distantly, to know you. Come home in one piece, and thank you for what you do.

_______________
"Yep. That's a cow fetus."

---

I may not agree with you on a lot of things, but I agree with you on all parts of this post. Werespaz over and out.

-The SpAz

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TragicStory:
Tash,
The simple answer to your question of "Why should I support the military?" is "Because you reap the benefits of their past exploits."

---

I'm not sure that logic works. If I owe gratitude to the current soldiers because of what the military did in the past, doesn't that give black people an obligation to hate current white people, for what the white people did in the past?

If a modern group of people can claim responsiblity and deserve credit for things that their "Group" did a long time ago, then it should go both ways and this sort of opens a can of worms.

Should black Americans hate white Americans because of the past? NO. Should the Germans be hated because of the past? NO. Should the Military be loved because of the past. YES?

Logically, it doesn't seem right.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Logically, it doesn't seem right.

---

You're right. It's not.

The reason you should support the men and women who serve in the military (which is different from supporting the military in toto) was best said by Demi Moore in an otherwise (IMO) worthless movie.

"Because they stand on a wall and say, 'Nothing's going to hurt you tonight. Not on my watch.'"

I've known and worked with hundreds of military people, and not one of them joined in order to kill people. They signed up for a job that takes away much of their freedom and often exposes them to horrifyingly real life-or-death danger because they wanted to protect the US and its citizens from those that would do them harm.

Now, I share some of your reservations about the uses the US military is put to. And, I work alongside military personnel rather than as one of them because I am a conscientious objector who will not willingly fight in a war. So, I understand where you're coming from. But an opposition to war and bloodshed does not of necessity include an unqualified opposition to the warriors who are involved in them.

Even if you can't abide the actions someone like Static is involved in, and do not share his opinion on the necessity of this or any conflict, can you not at least see the nobility of spirit that is behind the willing sacrifice he's making to (at least as he sees it) protect the US and its people?

_______________
"Yep. That's a cow fetus."

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Am I the only one who thinks it's a good, moral thing to kill evildoers, even if they're not attacking you personally? Maybe I'm just a psychotic lowlife, but if you could kill Niska right now, wouldn't you? Or you could lock him in a cell for his whole life, thus giving him the pleasure of 50 years in a box, and giving you the bill for feeding and housing him.
Of course, an Iraqi who thinks he's dying to free his nation from foreign invaders isn't an "evildoer." So I'm against the Iraq war, simply because I don't find any of the reasons compelling. Afganistan, however, was probably the most justified American military operation since World War II. Al-qaeda attacks us, we attack them and their allies/partners. Now Afganistan is free to fulfill its purpose in the world economy: supplying Europe with opium and heroin.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
The 'pipefitter' metaphor is BS- He is doing the job, he makes the decisions, HE can quit- So if pipefitting is bad, he might just be making the wrong life choice- The soldier does not have that option (he cant just go 'I think this is a bad job' and quit), therefore, you can support him (the soldier) and not the job- I've done a lot of jobs I didnt like, but I always did them 100%, and it's the same with them- I dont like what they are doing, but I expect 100% out of them regardless till it's time for them to come home- I have friends in Iraq, they know I want them home safe and want them to do whatever they have to do to get the job done and stay safe- But they also know that I think the decision to invade was a bad call, so I write letters and speak out- It might sound like a contradiction, but, hey, as we say around here, 'some people juggle geese'-

---

The US military is all voluntary. And whether it is killing, or pipefitting, it is still the action that provides the identity of the individual. If you object to killing, you are objecting the the concept of soldiering in the first place. Regardless of which side you think is right or wrong.

Also, "I vas just following orders" does not cut it as a defense, nor is that how the US military looks at or deals with these issues. You are still morally responsible for your actions, regardless of who told you to do it. You are also, since at least Nuremburg legally responsible for your actions as the "I was just following orders" idea is not a valid defense. It excuses nothing.

Granted, humans are more than their jobs, and what they do. But still, if your soldiers are over there in a fight, even if it is one that you disagree with, making them doubt their mission is not condusive to getting them back home safely. They need assurance that they are doing the right thing. (Which I think they are.) They do not need the doubts we raise over hear to influence their ability to protect themselves and their fellow soldiers.

BTW: It was no attempt at being cute. I am too ugly and old to ever be mistaken for cute.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SevenPercent:
And it's not that I cant see the 'pipefitter' as a metaphor (I understand your point, really), it's also that I just dont like that metaphor personally- I dont like trivial things compared to death, that's all- It's like when a buddy of mine always says (and please lets not get into this one, just using an example) 'Bush lied about WMD, but Clinton lied about sex' - I HATE that, they are both lies and liars, sure, but one lie doesnt create BODIES-

---

First off, the analogy is valid as both are chosen actions. Deciding to be a pipefitter, or being a soldier, are identities created or adopted by choice. Granted, the choice has different consequences both to yourself and to others. You may not like that, but again, one of the points I have been talking about is the 'verse is what it is. Whether you like it or not, it don't give a damn.

Second: The whole Bush lied thing. If you can find one major politician anywhere who said that Saddam did not have WMDs, or anyone in the know, prior to the invasion and war, point him out. Bush is not the only one saying that he had them. MI6, French, German, Russian and Chinese intel, even Hans Blix, all said the same thing. So did Clinton. Everyone thought he did have them, and it appears that even Saddam himself was under the false impression that he had them. There was a network of distrust and lies going on, but not in the US or British administrations. It was in Iraq the whole time, and the fact that it fooled everyone else, well, that is regrettable.

Besides which, you really need to read all of Kay's testimony. Saddam did have ongoing prohibited weapons programs. He had the factories for some pretty nasty stuff, and in Kay's words, was "probably more dangerous" than we thought.

Third: I support what our troops are doing over in Iraq, and in Afghanistan for purely selfish reasons. I don't want another 9-11, or something worse to occur here ever again. But I am not blind to the benefit the removal of Saddam has had on the Iraqi people themselves. No more mass graves, no more plastics shredders, no more "special arraignments" with jr. high school principles to send their female students to Udays house after hours. Removing Saddam was right, not just for my own petty selfish interests of not getting attacked, but to the Iraqi people as well.

The only way for evil to prosper, is for good people to sit back and do nothing. We did (almost) nothing for 12 years, and a lot of evil occured in Iraq in that time. Now that is over, and what the future brings is anyone's guess. What ain't a guess is the past is over and done with, and soon it will be dead along with Saddam. How this is NOT a good thing, well, somebody will have to explain it to me.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Noocyte:
I'm really going to try and not write a dissertation here....

I do not believe that we should have gone into Iraq. It was a cynical, political (as in domestic. As in approval rating. As in election.), economic (as in Oil) move, which was reviled by the majority of the 'civilized' world. The fact that it has beneficial spin-offs (like removing the mad despot, Saddam from power; like presenting a strong front to potentially threatening nations; like potentially [though by no means certainly!] reducing the degree to which we are beholden to the Saudis, and thus strengthening our hand in negotiations [etc.] with them) must be seen as secondary to the decidedly NON-righteous reasons for going in.

---

Arguing on intentions is a very tricky thing to do. And ultimately kinda pointless. I disagree totally with your characterization of the reasons for going after Saddam, but lets say you are right. That this was done for all the wrong reasons.

Does it matter? Especially does it matter to the Iraqi people themselves?

What matters is the consequences of your actions, not why you did it, or more importantly, why anyone else thinks you did it. Intentions are one of those mental things that you keep locked in your skull and nobody can access without your involvement. I can tell you what my reasons were for supporting the war, but you have no way of verifying, or refuting, what I tell you. You can, decide (for no reason whatsoever) that I am lying to you, and there is no way I can invite you in my skull to show you that my intentions are not dishonorable or "wrong" as you see it.

Its very easy to call another's explaination of their reasoning a lie, and come up with all sorts of ulterior motives. Its a great tactic, as it is outsides the bounds of objective proof. The opponent can't refute it, but then you cannot prove what was in his mind all the time.

And ultimately, its a waste of effort. What matters is not what you intend to happen, but what actually happens. Does the actions look as if it will achieve the stated goals? (i.e. reduce the threat to the US from foreign terrorists, by liberating Iraq from its tyrant and showing Muslims that they are not just some "wogs", but are as deserving of the benefits of democracy and competent at working within such, as anyone else.)

All the good intentions in the world ain't going to fix anything. Its actions. And its not just any ole action will do, but one that actually accomplishes the intention. Or else, the liberal left would have solved all the inner city problems years ago, with all their various programs and good intentions.

Quote:

---

I DO believe we should be in Afghanistan. The toppling of a dangerously fanatical, aggressive regime which DIRECTLY aided and abetted those who did us serious harm was imperative. Further, sticking around to finish the job, and support that nation's efforts to establish a more adaptive form of self-governance is the right thing to do. Indeed, it is a legitimate expression of a policy which, had it been implemented before, might have nipped much of the terroristic campaigns against the US in the bud. By contrast, previous policies of going in and aiding that group, blasting the other group, then bugging out when the immediate aims had been accomplished arguably sowed the seeds which came to abominable bloom on a certain Tuesday morning in 2001.

---

Then you get into charges of US imperialism and the like, lack of support, and too many folks complaining about how we should not be imposing our values on the Afghanis. Many of these arguments have been trotted out by folks who are in complete agreement with you. And that leaves things confused. Do we removes murderous tyrants or let them kill their own people. Do we establish democracy in these countries or let them establish the kind of government they see fit?

Quote:

---

In this vein, I think that STATIC and all his compatriots amply derserve our full, unalloyed, unapologetic support...whatever we may think of the po

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Although this did turn in to a political debate, It has still been kept very civil which has been a pleasure to read.
However there are three things never to discuss on a web board: politics, religion, and sports. These are things that you can not ever change in the minds of others. It's all about opinions. And like a friend of mine said "Opinions are like cowboy hats. Everyone who wears one is an ass*ole."
Well we have them and that's what makes us the person we are. Thanks for sharing, it's given me much thought.
http://www.scottrchambers.com/rcpm/godgavemeagun.WMA I think it's fits.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Werespaz:
Hmm. I don't remember attacking Saudi Arabia, as 15 of the 19 highjackers were from there.

---

Saudi Arabia is kind of a weird case. There is evidence that the royal family is split, some taking a more western friendly view, and some not so much. There are deep problems in the kingdom right now, which is part of the reason for all this mess we are in now.

The real "root cause" of terrorism is not what the US did or did not do. Ultimately it does not matter, because no matter what we do, one side or the other will not like it, and blame us for their inability to take control of the government.

The root cause is despotism and tyranny. Saudi Arabia has developed a knack for channeling all that rage felt by its people (and due to its own incompetence,) outward. Its the Jews fault, its the Americans fault. If we can only get the US out of Saudi Arabia, we can take control, etc.

Well, we're out of the kingdom now. And Saudi Arabia is being attacked. Not by us, but by those same jihadis who until recently had focused their anger toward the US. There have been several bombings in and around Riadyh in the past year. But we ain't the ones doing it.

Some have called this present war the Saudi Civil War, and remarked that it was unique in being the first civil war fought almost exclusively outside the borders of the nation. You are seeing that change even now.

Quote:

---

Spent too much time doing what? There were U.N. inspectors all over Iraq, and when they weren't getting delayed by misleading or wrong U.S. intelligence they weren't finding anything. Why? Because as we're finding out now, Iraq didn't have anything. If the inspectors would've had 6 months to a year of time, they would've reached the same conclusions as we are arriving at now, without the loss of several hundred U.S. service men and woman and the countless loss of Iraqi lives.

---

This is not quite accurate. The inspectors were finding that Saddam was keeping programs active, was not destroying his weapons as prescribed in the cease fire. The documents they were getting from the Iraqis themselves kept showing they were hiding something, again in violation of the cease fire and the UN resolutions. This is why despite Hans Blix hatred for the US's present administration, he never gave Saddam a clean bill of health on this one issue.

Also it should be pointed out that fewer Iraqi civilians were killed during the war, as well as afterwards, than Saddam was killing. More Iraqi civilians would be dead today, if Saddam were still in power.

Quote:

---

Who? Us, Brittain and about a thousand troops from Australia? That's many?

---

First off, we're in a catch 22 area. If the US goes in alone, its being unilateral. If it gets support from nations like Great Britian, Australia, Poland, Spain, Japan, etc. etc. This does not constitute a 'real colition'

Militarily, we don't need anyone else's help. Right now, I think only Great Britain and the US have even similar military capabilities, and even GB is far behind us. So, if a colilition is not needed militarily, why is it needed at all?

Politics. But its set up as a rigged gamed. It doesn't count as a real colilition unless France is part of it, despite inability (and even unwillingness as seen in Afghanistan) to be part of it.

Quote:

---

All other political motivations aside, I think if Bush was a patient man, he would've waited until the U.N. Inspectors came back from Iraq either saying A)"Saddam is not cooperating" or B)"We have some evidence that he is desparately trying to reconstitute his WMD program and at some time in the future could have some." Nothing like that was being said about the inspections.

---

Actually what was being said was Saddam was NOT cooperating. That is what Blix said on his last trip there.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LtNOWIS:
Am I the only one who thinks it's a good, moral thing to kill evildoers, even if they're not attacking you personally?

---

Nope not alone one bit. I will go further, (proving how much a lower life than you I am) and say you don't wait till he pulls the trigger or hits you first. If you are sure that he is going to hit you, kill him first, before he kills you.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Static,

I'd like to apologize, I did you wrong. You don't deserve receiving the brunt of my frustration over the current state of the world. To quote my ex-girlfriend, "It's not you, it's me."

I've learned a lot as I read these posts and the issues are so complex, I need more time before I can properly respond to everything.

But at this point, I want to say I'm sorry, and I feel bad for kicking your sand castle. Don't change, don't stop posting. Keep it up, you are a great Browncoat. I owe you a beer.

As for Drakon, I'm really mad at you! I lay awake at night thinking, "If it's necessary, than it can't be Evil?" Yeah, tell that to my priest.

Damn. I need to think about everything some more.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Brass tacks time.

1. There is a universe of difference between supporting a war, and supporting your warriors. It's the difference between steering the car and maintaining the engine. Whatever I think about the gene-damaged turkeys at the wheel right now, our armed forces are the best Hemi money can buy, Thor bless 'em all.

2. I am not responsible for Bush & Co.'s* foreign adventures; I did not vote for them; even if I had, voting itself is what renews your "right to bitch" license; I'd still be free to bust their chops, even if I was registered Republican. That's what representative democracy is all about.

3. Can we please get over the image of hippies in airports spitting on returning Viet Nam vets? Yes, I know the country spit (spat?) on them, metaphorically speaking, but I've never spoken to anyone who actually witnessed some long-haired-hippie-type-pinko-fag(tm)physically expectorating on someone fresh off the last plane from Saigon. And if a LHHTPF was unwise enough to do so, I expect he'd be eating airport carpet muy rapido, and I doubt SFO security would have done much about it.

*Footquote: "Of course the war's going to hell. Our leadership consists of a bush, a dick, and a colon." -- Don Bleu

RocketJock

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

*Footquote: "Of course the war's going to hell. Our leadership consists of a bush, a dick, and a colon." -- Don Bleu

---

Ah, jeez. Not only did I just chortle (yes, chortle), but I actually snorted. Thus have a just received funny looks from both the wife and the dog.

Thanks a lot!



Department of Redundancy Department

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Drakon:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LtNOWIS:
Am I the only one who thinks it's a good, moral thing to kill evildoers, even if they're not attacking you personally?

---

Nope not alone one bit. I will go further, (proving how much a lower life than you I am) and say you don't wait till he pulls the trigger or hits you first. If you are sure that he is going to hit you, kill him first, before he kills you.

---

If "and only if" you are sure...

You're all getting into pretty iffy territory now. Defining "evildoers" and going so far as to take "moral" action against them. Whew!

I know you might be thinking, "we're only talking about when a guy has a gun pulled out, and for whatever reason you've decided he's gonna kill you, it's fine to kill him first." Of course. That's self defense. But that's not what I'm talking about here.

You said "...it's a good, moral thing to kill evildoers..." That's a blanket statement. I would say you're right in some cases, but I can think of instances where you're wrong.

For someone to think that way, first off they would have to decide that their version of "right and wrong" are the only correct one. That's real big of 'em. And really narrow-minded.

If everyone thought that way, then, of course, everyone would just be a bystander waiting to be labeled an "evildoer" by someone else and eventually hit first or shot first.



-------------------------------------------
Inara: Who's winning?
Simon: I can't really tell, they don't seem to be playing by any civilized rules that I know.
-------------------------------------------

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ManiacNumberOne:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Drakon:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LtNOWIS:
Am I the only one who thinks it's a good, moral thing to kill evildoers, even if they're not attacking you personally?

---

Nope not alone one bit. I will go further, (proving how much a lower life than you I am) and say you don't wait till he pulls the trigger or hits you first. If you are sure that he is going to hit you, kill him first, before he kills you.

---

If "and only if" you are sure...

You're all getting into pretty iffy territory now. Defining "evildoers" and going so far as to take "moral" action against them. Whew!

I know you might be thinking, "we're only talking about when a guy has a gun pulled out, and for whatever reason you've decided he's gonna kill you, it's fine to kill him first." Of course. That's self defense. But that's not what I'm talking about here.

You said "...it's a good, moral thing to kill evildoers..." That's a blanket statement. I would say you're right in some cases, but I can think of instances where you're wrong.

For someone to think that way, first off they would have to decide that their version of "right and wrong" are the only correct one. That's real big of 'em. And really narrow-minded.

If everyone thought that way, then, of course, everyone would just be a bystander waiting to be labeled an "evildoer" by someone else and eventually hit first or shot first.

---

Sad but true. But which is more preferable to you. Being alive and wrong, or being dead? That is the choice you got. You do get into the problem in that the more 'certain' you are about something, the more risk you are assuming. And in such situations like this, if you are wrong about the guy being harmless, or take too long to figure it out, achieve a greater degree of certainty, you're dead.

Smoking guns only smoke after they've been fired. At that point you can be pretty certain of what they are trying to do. But you can also be dead, and that just is not good.

Now, here is how I see things morally. No force, no fraud, don't harm folks and try not to scare the horses. As long as you don't make your problems mine, I ain't got no problem with you.

I also look at it from a position of reciprocity. I won't kill you, as long as you don't try to kill me. I won't steal from you, as long as you don't try to steal from me. I won't force my beliefs, even my morality on you, as long as you reciprocate in an identical manner.

And you know what? I think I am right. Now that may be narrow minded, or "big" (?). Tough. That is the way it is.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Drakon:
... I won't force my beliefs, even my morality on you, as long as you reciprocate in an identical manner.

And you know what? I think I am right. Now that may be narrow minded, or "big" (?). Tough. That is the way it is.

---

Don't you see that you've overlooked the fact that you are expecting everyone to adhere to your morality?

You say, "as long as you reciprocate in an identical manner." By believing that, you are apparently unwittingly, forcing your beliefs on people whether they want them or not. I really think you need to take a closer look at this issue.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I, too, serve PROUDLY in our country's military. I am an intelligence analyst with the U.S. Navy SEALs. I spent time in Afghanistan (Kandahar Airport, right after we captured the place), and Iraq (made it all the way to Baghdad with the 1st Marine Division). I say this by way of proving that I know whereof I speak.

To the folks in here expressing support for me and mine in the armed forces, my sincerest thanks. Don't much care if you think the war is just or not, so long as you don't spit on me. Happened to my Uncle after Vietnam.

To all else (Succotash, and his ilk), you don't have the foggiest what you're talking about. You don't understand the concept of duty to one's country. You don't understand the concept of sacrifice for something greater than self. You don't understand notion that I can simultaneously kill and not be a murderer. You don't understand these things because you don't have first hand experience with the military. The military is necessary? Yes. The military is evil? No.

That said, I will put my life on the line (and I have twice now) to guarantee that you can continue to believe and think what you want. I will brave bullets and blood and bombs to insure that everyone in this here country of ours never has to face those things. You ought to respect the military because people who wear the uniform guarantee the freedom of the rest of the country. The people who have died in the uniform bought that freedom with thier life.

I agree with 'Tash on only two points. First, Static sure does mention the military a lot. I don't get it, being that this is a Firefly board, but hey, he's got freedom to brag just like 'Tash has freedom to complain.

Second, not everyone who wears the uniform is a hero. The hero is the Sergeant who ran through a hail of Iraqi bullets to a Bradley, drove that Bradley into a hole in the perimeter caused by a massive explosion and through which Iraqis were pouring into the camp, then cleared, loaded and manned a .50 caliber machine gun, killing the Iraqis who were killing his comrades. The particular Sergeant was killed still firing the machine gun, and has been put in for a Medal of Honor. Not for randomly killing "innocent" Iraqis, but for giving his life in defense of his buddies. That's a hero.



_______________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
To all else (Succatash, and his ilk), you don't have the foggiest what you're talking about. You don't understand the concept of duty to one's country. You don't understand the concept of sacrifice for something greater than self. You don't understand notion that I can simultaneously kill and not be a murderer. You don't understand these things because you don't have first hand experience with the military.

---

You are mistaken. Duty to one's country does not only come in one form, nor does understanding sacrifice or things greater than oneself. Understanding of many things can and does come through many ways other than first-hand knowledge, but unfortunately most soldier-types tend to need that kind of visceral reinforcement. Please try not to tell me and others what we can and can't know, or why we can or can't know it.

-------------------------------------------
Inara: Who's winning?
Simon: I can't really tell, they don't seem to be playing by any civilized rules that I know.
-------------------------------------------

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

hehe... that's b/c those soldier types are the tools that the talking and thinking types (in absolutely no way am I saying soldier types don't think) use when the talking and thinking stop working and there are a bunch of bastards from hell charging up the hill with knifes and bombs. That's when you either pick up a rifle and defend your ideas or just sit back and enjoy that viceral experience that others are affording you.

No one can tell you what to think, say, or experience (well, at least at the philosophical level and within the confines of certain states in the US anyways). But when it comes down to getting your butt nailed to the wall by people who wants you and your ideas destroyed, or making them pay for thinking about killing you. I would just assumed that we can all pick up a rifle and help out. B/C at the end of the day, unless if someone is out there willing to defend all of that talking and thinking, it will all just get boiled to a nice postscript in history that absolutely no one will give a hoot about.

BTW, sacrificing the Grande-no-foam-soy-latte every other morning is not really a comparison. There is absolutely no comparison to getting your ass shot at with fighting the morning traffic or debating whether the sky is blue.

If one has a fine example of a comparable experience to sacrificing than to having your dearly beloved chopped down in combat, let those families who are burying them purple hearts know and see if they agree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ManiacNumberOne:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
To all else (Succatash, and his ilk), you don't have the foggiest what you're talking about. You don't understand the concept of duty to one's country. You don't understand the concept of sacrifice for something greater than self. You don't understand notion that I can simultaneously kill and not be a murderer. You don't understand these things because you don't have first hand experience with the military.

---

You are mistaken. Duty to one's country does not only come in one form, nor does understanding sacrifice or things greater than oneself. Understanding of many things can and does come through many ways other than first-hand knowledge, but unfortunately most soldier-types tend to need that kind of visceral reinforcement. Please try not to tell me and others what we can and can't know, or why we can or can't know it.

-------------------------------------------
Inara: Who's winning?
Simon: I can't really tell, they don't seem to be playing by any civilized rules that I know.
-------------------------------------------

---

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I will post later when I have more time to think.

Although I would like to say at this time that I would not spit on another person as you implied above. I think I am doing my duty by raising questions and not acting like a blind sheep.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I guess I don't know anything and my opinion about important things like sacrifice and morality and honor isn't valid because I haven't been to war. Sorry for making you all endure my lesser thoughts. I will just let all of you warriors decide what's right and wrong.

-------------------------------------------
Inara: Who's winning?
Simon: I can't really tell, they don't seem to be playing by any civilized rules that I know.
-------------------------------------------

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Well, thanks for trying to understand anyways. People in the military are just the same like you and everyone else. They are fathers, mothers, doctors, students, sons and daughters. They watch TV, listen to radio; they buy newspapers, milk, bread, meat, beer, groceries. They have to eat, sleep, drink, bath, shave, poop. They have to change their babies. They suffer thru loss and feel laughter, joy, sadness and sorrow.

They do all of these things just like you do.

But you don't have to fight, you have that luxury. Maybe you don't want to, maybe you don't need to. For whatever reason, these people volunteered to take up the training and be placed in those situations, to get in harms way. All for you, me, grandma, and fluffy. Whether you asked for it or not, like it or not; these men and women are still out there. Standing tall, guarding and defending proudly.

No one said that you can't say those words like dury, honor, morality, and sacrifices. But your use of those very same words and your understanding is completely different. The perspective is completely different. I didn't use the examples of missing out on one's Starbucks coffee lightly. Think about it, does someone in the military engage in the same type of struggle that you do as a fellow human - maybe not in the same exact routine and schedule; but they have to fight traffic just like you, they have to stand in line at the check out line just like you, and they have to buy food with that measily wee paycheck of theirs just like you (BTW, military make the worst pay, most of them are at below poverty level and have to get food stamps to get their family by. ) Now think about all of the other crap that they *and* their family have to go thru while engaging in combat. They are lucky to have a cold cup of coffee, they are lucky to have clean clothes, and they are certainly lucky if they can get by yet another day without getting their asses shot off. I would say that military people have quite a different perspective when you speak of the word sacrifice and their use of that very same word.

That's all I am talking about. They understand the very same things that you do, except they don't call it a sacrifice. To them, it's every day normal crap that they wish they had. Instead of the "every day normal crap" they have engaging in firefights with people that just absolutely hate your guts. Maybe you can read about it, see it in a movie, or chit-chat it up with your friends while standing around having a brewski; but it just isn't the same, not until you have smelled it, tasted it, have it sting your eyes, feel it jarring your bones, split you open, have it cut down a buddy of yours right next to you right in their prime with all of their hopes and dreams just dashed away in one moment's time. No, it's just not the same.

Look, it's not easy to understand and people who haven't gone thru it likely wouldn't understand it - I don't mean it in a way that you are too stupid to ever "get it". It's just an entirely different world - no one should have to be put thru it at all. But if you can appreciate it, then you can maybe go and just tell a soldier or a vet that you are sorry for what they have to do (and get pay jackshit for doing it) and go thru. Maybe you can share a cup of hot joe and have them tell you a story or two.

Maybe I can illustrate it with another set of words: Horror, Trauma, Anger; and let's compare a rape victim's experience as compared to our experience of those same words - and don't confuse me with someone trivializing a rape victim's experience, I am simply using it as an example of the same powerful emotions and and horrific experience. In fact, I am not going to delve into any details at all - since I have no comparable experience. Yet I am most certain that I use those very same words at work, at play, after watching a movie, during a sports game. See? I can certainly sympathise with the victim and discuss it with them; but in no way am I even going to broach the subject that I can know what they think about when t

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Hmm, I see this thread has risen from the dead, and it's actually pretty good timing as I have managed to come across a great speech by Charles Krauthammer which addresses much of what we're discussing. If you have the attention span for it, it's well worth the read:

http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.19912/news_detail.asp

Definitely check it out.

No power in the 'verse can stop me.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

You don't know me or anything about me. Let me tell you that my father was in the army, my brother in-law is currently high in the armed forces (no-where of anyone's business) and my brother is a doctor in the AF, who was recently in Turkey and Afghanistan. So, when you think you are talking to someone who doesn't know anything and you start shooting your mouth off, let me say, think twice. You're not gonna cow me with your pathetic attempt to undermine my ability to give input on a topic.

For you to say that your experience of something is more valid or should I say BETTER than someone else's because you've been in war is sad and wrong. Especially since you have no idea what experiences other people have been through. Believe it or not, even though war sucks ass, it isn't the worst thing in the world. Do you happen to know everyone? NO. So, quit making these statements saying that your experiences are the be-all-end-all.

And regarding what people in the armed forces call a sacrifice, from my experience with my family, my brother considers every moment away from home as such.


I agree with this---

" ...no one should have to be put thru it at all. But if you can appreciate it, then you can maybe go and just tell a soldier or a vet that you are sorry for what they have to do (and get pay jackshit for doing it) and go thru. Maybe you can share a cup of hot joe and have them tell you a story or two."



-------------------------------------------
Inara: Who's winning?
Simon: I can't really tell, they don't seem to be playing by any civilized rules that I know.
-------------------------------------------

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
To all else (Succotash...), you don't have the foggiest what you're talking about... You don't understand notion that I can simultaneously kill and not be a murderer... You don't understand these things because you don't have first hand experience with the military."

---

Hey, I never called anybody a "murderer." I do know marketing, and I smelled the stinky propaganda that took America to Iraq. Americans were sold a war, rather badly I might add, but somehow the cheerleading society jumped on board.

Bush sold the war with every means he had. He tried to link Saddam to Bin Laden, he sold a Good vs. Evil battle, then used "FREEDOM", crying, "Their lives suck, let's free them!" and let's not forget about the imaginary weapons of mass destruction.

I don't trust the system, and your sense of duty isn't really impressing me.

Quote:

---

You ought to respect the military because people who wear the uniform guarantee the freedom of the rest of the country.

---

I do respect the military. But I certainly don't cry and jump for joy when I see a soldier. I feel bad for what a soldier goes through.

Quote:

---

The people who have died in the uniform bought that freedom with thier life.

---

I'm glad I live free. I owe extreme gratitude to the Founding Fathers and retired and dead soldiers, I know we need a military, and I think it's currently being misused.

I would never spit on a person.

Quote:

---

I agree with 'Tash on only two points. First, Static sure does mention the military a lot. I don't get it, being that this is a Firefly board, but hey, he's got freedom to brag just like 'Tash has freedom to complain.

Second, not everyone who wears the uniform is a hero. The hero is the Sergeant who ran through a hail of Iraqi bullets to a Bradley, drove that Bradley into a hole in the perimeter caused by a massive explosion and through which Iraqis were pouring into the camp, then cleared, loaded and manned a .50 caliber machine gun, killing the Iraqis who were killing his comrades. The particular Sergeant was killed still firing the machine gun, and has been put in for a Medal of Honor. Not for randomly killing "innocent" Iraqis, but for giving his life in defense of his buddies. That's a hero.

---

Yeah, that's some serious shit. Soldiers should only be put in those situations when it's REALLY, REALLY important.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Once again, maniac has stumbled blindly and loudly into a corner, thrashing about for all to witness, wrestling himself into a knot. While this is sometimes hilarious, it . . . well, it's hilarious all the time, actually.

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Drakon:
... I won't force my beliefs, even my morality on you, as long as you reciprocate in an identical manner.

And you know what? I think I am right. Now that may be narrow minded, or "big" (?). Tough. That is the way it is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maniac responded:
Don't you see that you've overlooked the fact that you are expecting everyone to adhere to your morality?
You say, "as long as you reciprocate in an identical manner." By believing that, you are apparently unwittingly, forcing your beliefs on people whether they want them or not. I really think you need to take a closer look at this issue.

Anybody else notice that Maniac completely ignored the meaning of clear english words? That somehow 'you don't bother me, I won't bother you' became 'forcing your beliefs'?

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
To all else (Succatash, and his ilk), you don't have the foggiest what you're talking about. You don't understand the concept of duty to one's country. You don't understand the concept of sacrifice for something greater than self. You don't understand notion that I can simultaneously kill and not be a murderer. You don't understand these things because you don't have first hand experience with the military.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maniac responded:
You are mistaken. Duty to one's country does not only come in one form, nor does understanding sacrifice or things greater than oneself. Understanding of many things can and does come through many ways other than first-hand knowledge, but unfortunately most soldier-types tend to need that kind of visceral reinforcement. Please try not to tell me and others what we can and can't know, or why we can or can't know it.

Did Maniac just go crazy and fall down? Nobody said there was one form of duty or sacrifice, or did I miss that?. NOTHING is mastered without 'first-hand' experience, right? I know I don't want a medical student cutting on me. And 'visceral reinforcement'; that's a technical psychology term meaning 'too stupid to learn'?

There are high horses a-plenty out there; Maniac's just happens to be a rocking horse.

Maniac said:
I guess I don't know anything and my opinion about important things like sacrifice and morality and honor isn't valid because I haven't been to war. Sorry for making you all endure my lesser thoughts. I will just let all of you warriors decide what's right and wrong.

Finally, he gets it! The warriors ALWAYS decide what's right and wrong . . . the only question is are YOU a warrior, or do you have a good warrior to represent you?

Sorry you're having trouble keeping pace with all these concepts, Maniac, but just remember the old saying; if you can't walk, then you crawl, and if you can't do that . . . well, you know the rest.

Take my love
Take my land

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ManiacNumberOne:

You don't know me or anything about me. Let me tell you that my father was in the army, my brother in-law is currently high in the armed forces (no-where of anyone's business) and my brother is a doctor in the AF, who was recently in Turkey and Afghanistan. So, when you think you are talking to someone who doesn't know anything and you start shooting your mouth off, let me say, think twice. You're not gonna cow me with your pathetic attempt to undermine my ability to give input on a topic.

---

fine, so you have a innumerable better perspective than other folks who sit on the sidewalk cafe, a slightly more than those who read and study about it. I am not saying that your experience is not valuable to you and not saying it's not a valid one. However, it is still incomparable.

I would also point out that as valuable as the experience is having relations in the armed forces - and again, I am not saying your insights are not valid or not valuable - it would be a fallacy to commit it as first hand experience. After all, having a father and a uncle who are lawyers would certainly give one keen insight into the profession, however until one passes their own bar exams, said person should not be confered any legal responsibilities as a practicing attorney.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ManiacNumberOne:


For you to say that your experience of something is more valid or should I say BETTER than someone else's because you've been in war is sad and wrong. Especially since you have no idea what experiences other people have been through. Believe it or not, even though war sucks ass, it isn't the worst thing in the world. Do you happen to know everyone? NO. So, quit making these statements saying that your experiences are the be-all-end-all.

---

I don't know everyone and I don't claim to know them. I just know what everyone's nominal experience is as I have listed the few that everyone must experience and struggle against in real life, as do soldiers, farmers, physicians, librarians, policemens, factory workers, and burger flippers. I know that everyone experience what they call struggles thru life, that everyone all experience hardship as they see it. I am asking you to take a different perspective from your own and see that other people define hardship different from you. That soldiers use those same words that you do, but they use it to mean different things. I have provided a small illustration regarding a rape victims's perception on some very simple words that we use everyday in very casual manners - and those same words have very different and powerful emotions and meaning for other people with other experiences.

At no time, did I state that any one's experience is more valid or superior. It might be that it's is your attempt to rank people's experience to different levels. While I merely wish to point to the differences. A soldiers experience is not be-all-end-all, and I have no doubt that there are others who have truly comparable experience that might enable them to relate to them in a more approximate way. But I do point out again that a soldier is no different than anyone else, they are regular people when they are not send off to some foreign land. Again I repeat, that they go thru the same struggle that everyone else do. We have soldiers from every walk of life with the very same wishes and dreams, same labor and toil, the very same hopes and If you care to list the greater or fewer number of comparable experiences that you have, please do.

I feel that we are also in danger of another logical fallacy that I must enumerate every case and everyone's experience in order to discuss this matter. It should be sufficient to state a general case, offer a valid example, shows that it extrapolates, and come to an understanding that it should applied to most general cases. There will always be corner cases in the real world that must be dealt with on their own. But in most instances, again I must insist, that a soldie

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I also want to reinforce the fact that, when it comes down to the brass tacks. Soldiers as workers get paid diddly for the same kind of crap ( I would say and believe it's more crap ) and don't get paid nearly as well as firemen or policemen (examples of other professions whose workers put their lives in imminent danger). In fact, most soldiers earn below poverty level wages and live in the crapiest part of town around the bases.

In fact, lots of soldiers and their families have to get foodstamps just to survive everyday lives.

That's just not right at all.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfhawk:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Drakon:
... I won't force my beliefs, even my morality on you, as long as you reciprocate in an identical manner.

And you know what? I think I am right. Now that may be narrow minded, or "big" (?). Tough. That is the way it is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maniac responded:
Don't you see that you've overlooked the fact that you are expecting everyone to adhere to your morality?
You say, "as long as you reciprocate in an identical manner." By believing that, you are apparently unwittingly, forcing your beliefs on people whether they want them or not. I really think you need to take a closer look at this issue.
wulfhawk wrote:
"Anybody else notice that Maniac completely ignored the meaning of clear english words? That somehow 'you don't bother me, I won't bother you' became 'forcing your beliefs'?"

---

Ok, I like your style. I'm a technical writer though, so I KNOW you're full of shit. Did you notice that I didn't ignore the meaning of anything, Dumbshit? He said, "as long as you reciprocate in an identical manner." That isn't the same as "you don't bother me, I won't bother you", it's much, much, much closer to a forcing of beliefs. Think about that for at least 10 seconds before you start typing in your drunken stupor, alright?

Quote:

---

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by InevitableBetrayal:
To all else (Succatash, and his ilk), you don't have the foggiest what you're talking about. You don't understand the concept of duty to one's country. You don't understand the concept of sacrifice for something greater than self. You don't understand notion that I can simultaneously kill and not be a murderer. You don't understand these things because you don't have first hand experience with the military.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maniac responded:
You are mistaken. Duty to one's country does not only come in one form, nor does understanding sacrifice or things greater than oneself. Understanding of many things can and does come through many ways other than first-hand knowledge, but unfortunately most soldier-types tend to need that kind of visceral reinforcement. Please try not to tell me and others what we can and can't know, or why we can or can't know it.

wulfhawk wrote:
"Did Maniac just go crazy and fall down? Nobody said there was one form of duty or sacrifice, or did I miss that?. NOTHING is mastered without 'first-hand' experience, right? "

---

The only way you'd know someone on the ground is by looking over next to yourself. That is where you are wrong again. Mastery is gained through many ways. How many little kids do you think actually purposely touched the stove that their mother's told them not to?

---

-------------------------------------------
Inara: Who's winning?
Simon: I can't really tell, they don't seem to be playing by any civilized rules that I know.
-------------------------------------------

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

As always, the sweet reason of Maniac shines through to light our way.

If by 'technical writer' you mean you write those nice explanations that nobody but you or a crew of phone support geeks can figure out...well, that kinda explains itself, don't it?

If by 'full of shit' you mean you'd like to force your belief on me that I'm wrong and not allowed an opinion and that you are the final end-all, be-all of wisdom...well, that's pretty self explanatory, too.

If by 'dumbshit' you mean I'm not gonna let you spew quasi-english about things you shouldn't without calling you on it...well, that does too, I reckon.

"... I won't force my beliefs, even my morality on you, as long as you reciprocate in an identical manner."

This post says "...I won't force my beliefs...", and Maniac responds " you are apparently unwittingly, forcing your beliefs"
I think this explains itself, also...no, wait, Maniac didn't get it, right?

While I always appreciate the high level of education, intelligence and class brought to a post by Maniac (e.g. "Think about that for at least 10 seconds before you start typing in your drunken stupor, alright?"), I think my job here is done.

Almost. Since we're making it personal...

Maniac, you are a lying, cheating scum, almost completely without honor. That's not much of a cut-down to you, but I'm sure the other folks understand. I hope you don't travel out of state much, because in other states they scrape up piles like you with a shovel and deposit them back into the field.



Take my love
Take my land

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

You're all getting into pretty iffy territory now. Defining "evildoers" and going so far as to take "moral" action against them. Whew!

I know you might be thinking, "we're only talking about when a guy has a gun pulled out, and for whatever reason you've decided he's gonna kill you, it's fine to kill him first." Of course. That's self defense. But that's not what I'm talking about here.

You said "...it's a good, moral thing to kill evildoers..." That's a blanket statement. I would say you're right in some cases, but I can think of instances where you're wrong.

For someone to think that way, first off they would have to decide that their version of "right and wrong" are the only correct one. That's real big of 'em. And really narrow-minded.

---

But what about the people that everybody thinks is incredibly evil? Like serial rapists, for instance. Or the Washington area snipers. Even though they aren't going to ever hurt you, or anybody you know, wouldn't it still be a good idea to kill them? The way I see it, if you deserve death twice over, you ought to be killed. It's like in the Toby Keith song, "Beer for my horses."
Lyrics: http://www.anysonglyrics.com/lyrics/t/tobykeith/beerformyhorses.htm
Of course, killing isn't something you should do lightly, but there are a lot of people who deserve to be executed.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfhawk:
Almost. Since we're making it personal...

---

Can we take it back AWAY from being personal? There's no need for the kind of hostility being thrown about here. There's just folks having differences of opinion/experience/etc. Some might change their opinions, some might not. No need for name callin' and the like - by anyone.

Now, with that statement, I'm probably going to receive a bit of flaming my own self, but it needed to be said.

~A~

...I'm still free,
You can't take the sky from me.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Sure thing, Astriana...just wanted to demonstrate that a fella didn't have to resort to grade school cursing to make a point.

You shouldn't worry about flames...none could reach the rising star of your human spirit.

Take my love
Take my land

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfhawk:
Maniac, you are a lying, cheating scum, almost completely without honor. That's not much of a cut-down to you, but I'm sure the other folks understand. I hope you don't travel out of state much, because in other states they scrape up piles like you with a shovel and deposit them back into the field.

---

Wow.

You know, I've been trying to learn something on this thread. But this is terrible. You are lashing out like an angry child. Where's the honor in that?

Wulfhawk, your behavior undermines anything you have to say about the definition of honor. Kind of ironic, don't you think?

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Knew you'd have to jump in with your associate, 'tash. Inevitably, those without honor feel the need to gang up on those with it.

Didn't you say:
The way I see it, instead of killing everybody who hates the U.S., we should be focusing on WHY they hate us. Maybe it's because we bomb the shit out of everyone and we act like assholes ... We're doing a GREAT job of making new enemies.

So. You're trying to say that your and maniac's namecalling is OK, that acting like assholes and flaming the shit out of everyone is just fine? That your actions shouldn't attract the emnity of those you attack?

You boys get together and see if you can come up with something better, dong ma?

It's all fun 'til someone's eye gets put out.

Take my love
Take my land

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

While it might not be right, I think you might take an exception to the fact that it was instigated by others. Maybe you might feel ok if someone tells you that your work and your craft is crap - somehow I doubt it. Deep down inside, even the most cynical of us feel a certain pride in what we do - some people have their profession define who they are, others have their hobbies and craft, but it's all what we do.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Succatash:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfhawk:
Maniac, you are a lying, cheating scum, almost completely without honor. That's not much of a cut-down to you, but I'm sure the other folks understand. I hope you don't travel out of state much, because in other states they scrape up piles like you with a shovel and deposit them back into the field.

---

Wow.

You know, I've been trying to learn something on this thread. But this is terrible. You are lashing out like an angry child. Where's the honor in that?

Wulfhawk, your behavior undermines anything you have to say about the definition of honor. Kind of ironic, don't you think?

---

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Succatash:
You are lashing out like an angry child.

---

"Hello kettle? This is Tash. You're black."



______________________________________________________
"Be reasonable! What're you takin' this so personal for? It ain't like I ratted you out to the Feds."
"Oh, but you did. You turn on any of my crew, you turn on ME!!"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

>>Of course, killing isn't something you should do lightly, but there are a lot of people who deserve to be executed.<<

"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be so eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."
Gandalf "Stormcrow" Greyhame.

As written by J.R.R Tolkien.
Probably the greatest bit of wisdom in the entire tale, summarised in a single statement.

That being said....

Damnnn folks, just agree to disagree and try to be adults about it, ehe ?

-frem
diefuxdie

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Lerxst:
"Hello kettle? This is Tash. You're black."

---

How so? I'm not preaching about honor. I'm not screaming and crying about someone's lack of honor, am I? Your post is stupid.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Just funnin' with you a little, Tash. It just struck me as a tad ironical that you would call someone childish, while you yourself have thrown tantrums of legendary proportions.


______________________________________________________
"Be reasonable! What're you takin' this so personal for? It ain't like I ratted you out to the Feds."
"Oh, but you did. You turn on any of my crew, you turn on ME!!"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Succatash:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfhawk:
Maniac, you are a lying, cheating scum, almost completely without honor. That's not much of a cut-down to you, but I'm sure the other folks understand. I hope you don't travel out of state much, because in other states they scrape up piles like you with a shovel and deposit them back into the field.

---

Wow.

You know, I've been trying to learn something on this thread. But this is terrible. You are lashing out like an angry child. Where's the honor in that?

Wulfhawk, your behavior undermines anything you have to say about the definition of honor. Kind of ironic, don't you think?

---

Looks like you were preaching to me, 'tasho.
My only definition of honor was ya'lls lack of it 8) Ah, the IRONY! Oh, the HUMANITY! This is just too easy. For my part, let this post sink into the abyssal ooze where it belongs.

Take my love
Take my land

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

This whole issue of supporting soldiers without supporting the war is a very interesting and sensitive subject.

I've truly been struggling with this for quite a while, and I've learned a lot from the responses and even changed some of my opinions because of it.

This thread has crashed and burned, but if there's anyway we can resume civil talk, I'd like to continue.

Sorry to all for my part in the Rude Fest.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Tash,

First of all, I believe you addressed an apology to me earlier in this thread. I thank you for that, accept it gladly, and once again state that you should never apologize for expressing your honest and sincere opinion to me.

I have finally decided to throw a bit of input into this thread, but it might not be what others expect to read. After talking with a few people who "get paid more than me" I have decided to answer one or two questions that might make some folks feel a little better, or might make them feel a bit worse.

I cannot comment on Iraq, simply because I am not there. I will only express the opinion that I don't think we should have gone there YET. I believe that Hussein and his regime had the potential to make 9/11 look like a rained-out ball game, BUT, I think if we had waited a bit longer, they would have given us 'enough rope to hang them with' and the entire world would have supported it. The trade-off for acting early. . .we know that we PROBABLY averted something bad. . .but since we never let it happen. . .now we get to guess. Sleep tight, Mr. President.

Afghanistan.
Different story.

Some guys flew a few planes through some office buildings and ran to hide in Afghanistan. The Taliban, Afghanistan's ruling body (if you could call it that) told us to go screw ourselves, and that they wouldn't cooperate with us, so we decided to come in WITHOUT an invitation. SO, now the Taliban count among the bad guys. Support terrorists, get counted among them. Seeing as how the Taliban had begun the systematic elimination of entire TRIBES of Afghani nationals, this wasn't too hard to justify. Several united Afghani tribes (The Northern Alliance) agreed to help us overthrow the Taliban. . .the trade is, we can operate in their country if we stay out of their inter-tribal squabbles. . .which we do.

In Afghanistan, we are actively searching for still-active members the Taliban, as well as active cells of the Al-Queda (Bin Laden's terrorist network). We have VERY STRICT rules of engagement. Basically, we're allowed to shoot BACK. That's it. The only time we ever INITIATE hostile action is after all sorts of intelligence establishes beyond any doubt that the people involved are either Taliban, Al-Queda or actively supporting either. In these instances, our PRIMARY interest is to capture, not kill. I can honestly say that I have fired more FLARES from my aircraft than anything else. The flares are normally used as a countermeasure against heat-seeking rockets, but we find that if you pop two or three of them in front of a speeding ban or truck, the people driving them tend to stop and surrender.

I think Iraq was a bad idea that could be turned around into some good results. I wish we hadn't gone YET, but I hope we're able to help these people build a life that doesn't include murderous dictators (or meddling democracies).

I think as far as Afghanistan was concerned we followed the ONLY course of action available. I mean some folks can talk about economic sanctions, strengthening the intel community, etc. etc. etc. . .but the fact remains that one day, someone would still probably be 'asleep at the switch' which is the very thing that terrorist look for. . .the thing they wait for. . .and the reason they succeeded in striking in the FIRST place.

I'm sorry if I convey to anyone that I relish the idea or act of taking lives. Truth be told, I don't think a single day of my leave has gone by that I haven't fallen apart. I also apologize if any you are offended by the way we shout 'firefly-isms' in the heat of battle. I can only say that in the heat of battle, the rush doesn't come from the knowledge that you have just TAKEN life. . .but rather the knowledge that you have just SURVIVED. Every shot you fire, every enemy you kill. . .that's just one more person who can't kill you. . .which buys you a few more minutes in this world.

I would love to see this thread die, because I hate to see an angry argument here. I would love to see us go back to discussing galaxy

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

You know what, Static? You make a lot of sense.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I never take part in off-topic forays, but I read some of this because a) I was intrigued by the 'Tash's first post and his heartfelt opinion and b) there were some elucidating contributing opinions.
Last, I think you're underpaid Static.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I will reluctantly apologize for my ripostes; reluctantly because I sure love a good scrap, apologize because I laid on with a little too much enthusiasm. Don't worry guys, the chirurgeon can fix ya right up, won't hardly leave a mark.

As for Iran, Static...just because there weren't any rounds in the clip didn't make their threat any less real. If NOTHING else, all the leaders of all the countries in the world who deal with and harbor terrorists, weapons of mass destruction, and tyranny are now convinced we, U.S., won't necessarily wait for them to strike first. They all know that our, U.S., defensive decisions are not in the hands of the U.N. They all know that decent, brave, and skilled people are ready and willing to do whatever is needed, whereever it's needed.

I sleep a lot better knowing they know that. Thanks for your part, soldier.

Matt Champine, lddirewolf@hotmail.com

Take my love
Take my land

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

(Wulfhawk) I was relieved when I saw your response to my post. I thought, perhaps someone might be able to pick apart what I said. Fortunately, I was dealing with you though. All you could do was call me names and say you wanted this thread to sink away. No doubt you do. You are not looking too good here.
After you first called me many names and I responded by calling you one name (a dumbshit), you have since called me about ten more names such as:
asshole,
flaming the shit out of everyone,
ilk,
lying,
cheating scum,
without honor.

...and then you have the gaul to post a statement like this? "just wanted to demonstrate that a fella didn't have to resort to grade school cursing to make a point."

You have thrown more names around than anyone else on this thread. Take a closer look.

To end with I'll quote your only wise statement - "see if you can come up with something better" than name-calling.

-------------------------------------------
Inara: Who's winning?
Simon: I can't really tell, they don't seem to be playing by any civilized rules that I know.
-------------------------------------------

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

W:
it's alright to take the high road and not respond to trolling. By all appearance, it is now merely a desperate attempt to draw you out to look silly. Not respond will not show that you are a coward. The incessant taunts are below everyone who responded here.

On another note, I wanted to find out where we can take this into a natural course. The US's military is an all volunteer one, but I happen to be in the opinion that every citizen should be serve a compulsory period. What purpose would it serve? I believe that every abled body men and women should be given the training and the opportunity to witness the type of ordeal that one must go thru to defend their own land. People in the US have grown extremely complacent in their beliefs that sitting around and talking will always be sufficient to solve all of their problems - we all hope that it is. But it is not - not because we don't wish it so, but because there are shadows out there who will wish you harm whenever you are not attentive. I believe that having compulsory service will put every citizen on an equal playing field as far as having a common experience to draw their perspectives from. I am not saying to have every brainwashed into believing that the military is a great thing. Far from that, but it would certainly get everyone an understand of that experience. The unknown breed confusion and confusion breeds fear. We can take the conversation to another level by picking it out of the unknown - make it a common experience.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wulfhawk:
I will reluctantly apologize for my ripostes; reluctantly because I sure love a good scrap, apologize because I laid on with a little too much enthusiasm. Don't worry guys, the chirurgeon can fix ya right up, won't hardly leave a mark.

As for Iran, Static...just because there weren't any rounds in the clip didn't make their threat any less real. If NOTHING else, all the leaders of all the countries in the world who deal with and harbor terrorists, weapons of mass destruction, and tyranny are now convinced we, U.S., won't necessarily wait for them to strike first. They all know that our, U.S., defensive decisions are not in the hands of the U.N. They all know that decent, brave, and skilled people are ready and willing to do whatever is needed, whereever it's needed.

I sleep a lot better knowing they know that. Thanks for your part, soldier.

Matt Champine, lddirewolf@hotmail.com

Take my love
Take my land

---

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I think that the government is already much too prevalent in our lives. They already tell us what to do more than they should.

If service in the military were compulsory, everyone still wouldn't have common experiences to draw from... the grunts would still be the grunts, etc. My brother is a doctor in the AF, and his experience during and after his service is going to be completely different than some 19 year old kid going in.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

That's another thing that I want to discuss as well. Compulsory service (not necessarily a Compulsory Military Service ala conscription) will also allow each and every one to work the government. I think we are partly to blame in how we have came to view the government is a separate entity from us that we have so loose of a control over. The government belongs to us and works for us. We should only cede what responsibility over to them to keep public safety and keep from a mob rule. I truly think that most everyone have become so complacent and so wrapped up in their own little world that there isn't even much time for armchair politics anymore - participation is one way of understanding and taking control. Taking back control if you would.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ManiacNumberOne:
I think that the government is already much too prevalent in our lives. They already tell us what to do more than they should.

If service in the military were compulsory, everyone still wouldn't have common experiences to draw from... the grunts would still be the grunts, etc. My brother is a doctor in the AF, and his experience during and after his service is going to be completely different than some 19 year old kid going in.

---

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

SO. . .

Mal's pistol. . .

pretty neat, huh?

It's obviously a 'slugthrower' of a unique design. . .I can't identify it as a pistol that currently exists, but something I've noticed with alot of the pistols in the show is that when the people 'cock' the pistol you get that little sound. . .not just the click, but sort of a 'power-up' sound. My theory is this. . .the weapons are electrically fired, meaning an electrical charge is what ignites the primer charge to fire the round. Just a thought.

==================================================
"Wash. . .we got some local color happening. A grand entrance would not go amiss."

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Static;

You are what, in some circles, is refered to as a mensch! If you can get that friend of yours to screen the BDM in North Carolina I will personally hop in my new Vibe and drive the many hours from Philly to buy you a beer (and I expect I will be SOOO not alone in this that your ability to focus at the end of the evening will be severely hampered!).

As for those guns ...I've always reconciled the little power-up sound to signify that, in addition to conventional hammer-strike-powder-ignition mode, there is an element of electromagnetic accelleration (a wee mass driver) in place, to increase muzzle velocity and thus stopping power. As a redundant system, the bullets could still fire without the boost (which would make it superior, in rustic settings, to, say "laaaasers" which leave you SOL if the juice dries up). Thoughts?

Keep Flyin'

Department of Redundancy Department

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

where does the battery come into play?

...from rance burgess's laser gun in HOG?

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

The noise could be something else. It could be liquid propellant being pumped into the firing chamber.

I like the accelerator idea, it would allow smaller rounds and more shots. It would explain why guns need to be metal still (for the rails) and so on.

The cocking bit could simply be the safety part. Has anyone seen Mal fanning the hammer when he shoots rapidly? If not then the hammer isn't an important part of the firing mechanism and is something else.


MAL Which one you figure tracked us?

ZOE The ugly one, sir.

MAL (beat) Could you be more specific?

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME