Pages: 1 2

 

2007-07-08 05:21:57
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6963|Πάϊ

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

But then, who do soldiers protect our freedom from? Why, other soldiers of course.
so are the terrorists we are fighting in afghanistan, iraq, etc considered 'soldiers'?  i would hesitate to call them actual soldiers because they don't fight for a state entity, don't wear uniforms, are not a very disciplined fighting force, etc.
I fail to see the importance of a uniform, discipline (whatever that might be) or that of a state entity (which is there btw).

I admit that the lack of a uniform may be a tad confusing for the opposing force, but that is no reason to get all mean about it!

As for discipline, I challenge you to define it and then tell me which aspects of it they lack.

State entity? Does "Arab World" sound uniting enough?

And let us not forget that "they" refers to the Mujahedeen, and that when the latter were fighting the Russians, the US government called them freedom fighters and certainly had no problem with them fighting without a uniform. Plus you sent Rambo to help
Of course, now that their national interests oppose those of the US, they are called "insurgents".

Finally, to remind you what those national interests are: Bin Laden said some time ago, that America would always live in fear blah blah blah until they left Palestine alone (and that includes all aid toward the state of Israel) and until they removed all troops from the Arab world. Requests quite defensive in nature, that is.
ƒ³
2007-07-08 05:23:20
CloakedStarship
Member
+76|7009

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

But then, who do soldiers protect our freedom from? Why, other soldiers of course.
so are the terrorists we are fighting in afghanistan, iraq, etc considered 'soldiers'?  i would hesitate to call them actual soldiers because they don't fight for a state entity, don't wear uniforms, are not a very disciplined fighting force, etc.
I don't like the "You need to have a uniform and lots of people to be a credible army" argument.  Makes me feel like, if we're thinking like that, we should just go back to the revolutionary days, line our guys up, and give them muskets.  Its just not the way things work anymore.

One does not need a large standing army to be a credible threat.

OP:  Great story, thanks for sharing.
2007-07-08 05:35:25
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7095|USA

HunterOfSkulls wrote:

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

so are the terrorists we are fighting in afghanistan, iraq, etc considered 'soldiers'?  i would hesitate to call them actual soldiers because they don't fight for a state entity, don't wear uniforms, are not a very disciplined fighting force, etc.
Well, they probably consider themselves soldiers. But regardless of actual official military status, can anybody honestly believe that there's ever been a conflict anywhere in the world where one side said to themselves and their troops "We're in the business of destroying freedom and spreading evil" outside of Saturday morning cartoons? Or for that matter, where one side said to themselves and their troops "Our enemies are human beings, just like you are, with families and hopes and dreams just like all of us, but we're gonna fuckin' kill 'em anyway"? Modern warfare requires that both sides believe themselves to be good and just paragons of humanity that shit sunshine and flowers and that their enemies are base and evil savages that drink blood and eat babies.

Every bit of State-oriented propaganda like this, well you can bet your ass the other side is pumping their people and their soldiers full of the same kind of shit. And naturally, everyone who hears it from their leaders and their media believes it to be true. Everybody wants to at least be perceived as the good guys. Even the fucking Nazis believed they were the good guys, doing God's work by cleansing the world of the evil Jew, as they herded innocents to their deaths, murdered old people and children, in their minds they were right because everyone around them said so. Their collective insanity was constantly validated by the State, the clergy, the media, with not many people brave enough or even able to contradict any of it. Their perceived enemies weren't happiness and freedom, they were subhuman vermin that dwelt amongst them, subverting their culture, corrupting their children, polluting their blood, mocking their traditions. That's the twofold problem with this patriotism shite: people steeped in either don't know when they've become the villains or if they do know it they can hide it from others beneath a mantle of "I defend you from the real villains".

You wanna know what real love of country and the people in it is? It's like the love of a parent for a child. You love that child no matter what. You are there when that child needs you to offer guidance and protection. But when that child does wrong you don't ignore it, you don't pretend it didn't happen or make excuses for it. You don't say "Well it's in the past, it doesn't matter". You do your damnedest to make sure that they make it right, that they own up to their responsibility and deal with the consequences no matter how harsh it might be. That is what we should be encouraging in these schoolkids, not this empty State-worship "You owe these soldiers and don't you ever forget it" bullshit.
Why does showing gratitude, respect, and acknowledgement to the men and  women that serve our country upset you so much that you would write a book on it?

This lady is correctly acknowledging that freedom is not free and that the vets in her class represent all of those that paid and are paying for it for us. Not really sure what is so upsetting about that.

Last edited by lowing (2007-07-08 10:28:21)

2007-07-08 06:36:14
konfusion
mostly afk
+480|6993|CH/BR - in UK

As long as the military doesn't have someone like Bush steering them, I think I can agree. However, I don't agree with this implementation that we have to think about how we owe them every moment of our lives. We should appreciate what they did, and try to do our own bit to make the world a better place, like getting a job or not using the car the next time we have to go somewhere in walking distance.
I think we should not live in awe of other people the whole time, but make our life worth something.

-konfusion
2007-07-09 23:28:13
HunterOfSkulls
Rated EC-10
+246|6723

lowing wrote:

Why does showing gratitude, respect, and acknowledgement to the men and  women that serve our country upset you so much that you would write a book on it?
When it starts treading close to the line of blatant Soviet-style State-worship indoctrination of youth it should be upsetting to anyone who values the freedoms of the people over the glorification of the State. I figured a good libertarian like you would be able to grasp that.

lowing wrote:

This lady is correctly acknowledging that freedom is not free and that the vets in her class represent all of those that paid and are paying for it for us. Not really sure what is so upsetting about that.
She is incorrectly drawing a correlation between soldiers and freedom, implying that freedom is a gift granted by soldiers when it is not. Freedom is capable of existing independently of armed force but it is also capable of being infringed upon by armed force. Again, something that you, as a libertarian, should be able to understand and also be upset by when public schools are used to indoctrinate children to unconditionally value State power. The soldier is but a tool of the State and can be used to either defend or remove freedom according to its dictates.
2007-07-10 06:54:19
SharkyMcshark
I'll take two
+132|7229|Perth, Western Australia

T.Pike wrote:

Martha said, “You don’t have to earn those desks. These guys did it
for you. They put them out there for you, but it’s up to you to sit
here responsibly to learn, to be good students and good citizens,
because they paid a price for you to have that desk to sit in and to
learn and don’t ever forget it.”
Ah the sweet sweet whiff of indoctrination, don't you just love it.

Children go to school to learn the subjects that they take. Not that theres anything wrong with this teacher's agenda, which aims to show her kids what she believes correlates to freedom, but you can't pretend that this isn't a textbook example of indoctrination.

Last edited by SharkyMcshark (2007-07-10 06:56:53)

2007-07-10 07:20:23
PureFodder
Member
+225|6729

Braddock wrote:

Can anyone here honestly claim that American freedom has had any credible threat towards it since WWII?
I wasn't aware of any credible threat to American freedom since about 1812.
2007-07-11 21:39:41
T.Pike
99 Problems . . .
+187|6726|Pennsyltucky

PureFodder wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Can anyone here honestly claim that American freedom has had any credible threat towards it since WWII?
I wasn't aware of any credible threat to American freedom since about 1812.
That little incident with Cuba having nuclear missles was probably over blown, huh ?

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard