[Las Vegas]

Time to remember and salute those men and women who lost their lives while serving in our military throughout our nations history.

[Chris Grieb]

Vegas; Thank you!

[Bill P]

Las Vegas, on May 25 2009, 01:46 PM, said:

Time to remember and salute those men and women who lost their lives while serving in our military throughout our nations history.

And thanks to all who have defended what is still the best and most free country on the planet.

Bill P

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Hear hear!

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Bill P, on May 25 2009, 08:07 AM, said:

Las Vegas, on May 25 2009, 01:46 PM, said:

Time to remember and salute those men and women who lost their lives while serving in our military throughout our nations history.

And thanks to all who have defended what is still the best and most free country on the planet.

Bill P

In some respects, Switzerland is freer and better. The reason why I am still in the U.S. is that I fell short of the capital requirements necessary to become a permanent resident of Switzerland. Switzerland is more boring than the U.S.* At the time I was thinking of going there, they had no Boom Boxes or sideways turned baseball caps and baggy trousers. Given that I am not in Switzerland I am happier to be here than in many other places in the world.

Ba'al Chatzaf

*The U.S. has the world series and the flights to the Moon. In the U.S. they invented the pizza and Kentucky Fried Chicken ™. In Switzerland, with 500 years of peace and brotherhood they invented the Coo Coo Clock.

This post has been edited by BaalChatzaf: 25 May 2009 - 02:17 PM

[Chris Grieb]

BaalChatzaf, on May 25 2009, 08:17 PM, said:

Bill P, on May 25 2009, 08:07 AM, said:

Las Vegas, on May 25 2009, 01:46 PM, said:

Time to remember and salute those men and women who lost their lives while serving in our military throughout our nations history.

And thanks to all who have defended what is still the best and most free country on the planet.

Bill P

In some respects, Switzerland is freer and better. The reason why I am still in the U.S. is that I fell short of the capital requirements necessary to become a permanent resident of Switzerland. Switzerland is more boring than the U.S.* At the time I was thinking of going there, they had no Boom Boxes or sideways turned baseball caps and baggy trousers. Given that I am not in Switzerland I am happier to be here than in many other places in the world.

Ba'al Chatzaf

*The U.S. has the world series and the flights to the Moon. In the U.S. they invented the pizza and Kentucky Fried Chicken ™. In Switzerland, with 500 years of peace and brotherhood they invented the Coo Coo Clock.

Ba'al; Your last paragraph is a para phase of Harry Lime's line in The Third Man. You can find Lime's line on IMDB.

[Selene]

Never forget.

Thanks to all the wolves and wolves in waiting living and dead.

Thank your wolf and say a silent prayer that they rest in peace.

Adam

[BaalChatzaf]

Chris Grieb, on May 25 2009, 04:53 PM, said:

Ba'al; Your last paragraph is a para phase of Harry Lime's line in The Third Man. You can find Lime's line on IMDB.

Yup. I updated Orson Welles famous ad lib.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Chris Grieb]

I really think you should have mentioned that you did.

[Selene]

So that they have not died in vain!!

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=QU1vL3TsIis

[BaalChatzaf]

Selene, on May 25 2009, 07:13 PM, said:

So that they have not died in vain!!

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=QU1vL3TsIis

Nifty update of the original.

I admired the portrayal of Patton in the motion picture. I believe among the greats of our nation are its Warriors, those who put their bodies in harms way to protect themselves, their families and me and mine. They have done more for me than I have ever done for them. I rank our Warriors right along with our Thinkers.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Finally you have expressed this sentiment in a form I can agree with 100%.

"They have done more for me than I have ever done for them."

That was a fine piece of rhetoric.

It almost brought a tear to my eye. I fogged up. Literally.

Michael

[sbeaulieu]

Comments like that are what keep us putting one foot in front of the other

While words are great, telling a service member "thanks" will go the extra mile...

~ Shane

[Martin Radwin]

No, I Do Not Support "The Troops"

http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2009/...ort-troops.html

[Selene]

Martin:

"This piece concerns 'the troops' as an institution; that is, it concerns the U.S. military as the indispensable and primary means of implementing and realizing the goals of the U.S. ruling class."

Your statement is that a critic "...examines the relevant evidence..." and "...to acknowledge the millions murdered by the U.S. government and our policy of aggressive military intervention across the globe would subject our own actions to the kinds of judgments that only the United States is entitled to make, and only about the actions of others. The United States is uniquely exempt from the standards we apply to everyone else; thus runs the catechism at the church of our inherent national superiority."

As part of the evidence that you have raised, you cite:

1) "...the criminal reign of George II...";
2) President O'Bama's escalating the undeclared "war" in Afghanistan which is allegedly linked to the undeclared global "war" on "terror" or the word the present administration substituted;
3) the global "empire" of bases;
4) joining the military means that you will be helping to carry out an "evil, reckless, and interventionist" U.S. foreign policy;
5) joining the military means that you will be expected to unconditionally follow orders;
6) joining the military means that you will be pressured to make a god out of the military;
7) "...being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken -- and they're wussy by definition."; and
8)"...almost every single war ever fought by the United States was entirely unnecessary in terms of any justifiable conception of self-defense; this is unquestionably true of every intervention since World War II."

You raise some quality issues. If I did not give a fair evaluation of your post, please add or correct.

I would completely reject number 5 and number 6 because of direct testimony from military folks that I personally know and trust implicitly and from historical writings.

Everything else is of interest to me to discuss/argue.

If I may ask some quick qualifying questions. First, I am assuming you are an American. Your approximate age? Did you ever serve in the military?

Adam

[Michelle R]

Appreciating the sacrifices people in the military make is fine, but don't revere the military too much. Being an anti-war nut is no good, but neither is being an uncritical militarist who thinks that we can do no wrong overseas.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michelle,

Once again you think as I do.

Balance is the key.

Leave the fringe to the fringe elements.

Or as I said somewhere else in quoting an old expression I like:

"Everything in moderation, including moderation."

Michael

[Michelle R]

Michael Stuart Kelly, on May 30 2009, 04:28 PM, said:

Michelle,

Once again you think as I do.

Balance is the key.

Leave the fringe to the fringe elements.

Or as I said somewhere else in quoting an old expression I like:

"Everything in moderation, including moderation."

Michael

Catchy quote!

Critical respectfulness (as opposed to uncritical respectfulness, as many Objectivists have for, say, Leonard Peikoff), the golden mean between the deficiency of complete disrespect and the excess of fanatical devotion.
That's how I'd apply Aristotelian ethical logic to this.

This post has been edited by Michelle R: 30 May 2009 - 03:35 PM

[Martin Radwin]

Selene, on May 30 2009, 11:01 AM, said:

Martin:

"This piece concerns 'the troops' as an institution; that is, it concerns the U.S. military as the indispensable and primary means of implementing and realizing the goals of the U.S. ruling class."

Your statement is that a critic "...examines the relevant evidence..." and "...to acknowledge the millions murdered by the U.S. government and our policy of aggressive military intervention across the globe would subject our own actions to the kinds of judgments that only the United States is entitled to make, and only about the actions of others. The United States is uniquely exempt from the standards we apply to everyone else; thus runs the catechism at the church of our inherent national superiority."

As part of the evidence that you have raised, you cite:

1) "...the criminal reign of George II...";
2) President O'Bama's escalating the undeclared "war" in Afghanistan which is allegedly linked to the undeclared global "war" on "terror" or the word the present administration substituted;
3) the global "empire" of bases;
4) joining the military means that you will be helping to carry out an "evil, reckless, and interventionist" U.S. foreign policy;
5) joining the military means that you will be expected to unconditionally follow orders;
6) joining the military means that you will be pressured to make a god out of the military;
7) "...being against the war and saying you support the troops is one of the wussiest positions the pacifists have ever taken -- and they're wussy by definition."; and
8)"...almost every single war ever fought by the United States was entirely unnecessary in terms of any justifiable conception of self-defense; this is unquestionably true of every intervention since World War II."

You raise some quality issues. If I did not give a fair evaluation of your post, please add or correct.

Adam, thanks for your reply.

Hey, it wasn't my post! The post I linked to was written by Arthur Silber, who has maintained a blog for a number of years. Silber is an ex objectivist who actually, as I recall, worked many years ago for "The Objectivist". I consider Arthur Silber to be one of the most brilliant thinkers around today and to have what I consider to be the best blog I have ever read.

I'm quite frankly surprised that you would give Mr. Silber credit for raising any quality issues at all. These days, almost all objectivists have an unremitting hostility toward anyone who even suggests that it is unlibertarian and unobjectivist for the US government to maintain a worldwide array of military bases, and to start unprovoked, non-defensive wars of aggression against other nations which have killed hundreds of thousands of people and destroyed the homes and lives of millions more.

Selene, on May 30 2009, 11:01 AM, said:

I would completely reject number 5 and number 6 because of direct testimony from military folks that I personally know and trust implicitly and from historical writings.

Well, as a general rule, joining the military does mean that you will be expected to unconditionally follow orders. Refusing to obey a lawful order will likely get you a court martial. The only exception to this is that unlawful orders are not to be obeyed. But in practice, unlawful orders are issued and obeyed all the time, or unlawful actions are taken by soldiers in contravention to actual orders. Just look at the frequency of attrocities committed during wars, the targeting of noncombatants, the torture of prisoners taken on the battlefield, etc.

Regarding your point #6, that joining the military means that you will be pressured to make a god out of the military, this seems a bit of an overgeneralization. But this certainly happens not infrequently, especially in a war zone where soldiers are surrounded by a hostile, alien, culturally very different population. Military training does tend to dehumanize the enemy, in order to make it easier for soldiers to kill them unquestionably, overcoming the natural human aversion to killing their fellow humans. Given such incredibly stressful conditions, there is a strong tendency for the military to become a sort of god, as a matter of physical and emotional survival.

Obviously, most people manage to survive their years in the military physically and emotionally intact, despite being subjected to the horrors of war. There are plenty of libertarians who are ex military.

Selene, on May 30 2009, 11:01 AM, said:

Everything else is of interest to me to discuss/argue.

If I may ask some quick qualifying questions. First, I am assuming you are an American. Your approximate age? Did you ever serve in the military?

I'm 55. I turned 18 during the Vietnam War, the very year when the college deferment was abolished and replaced with a lottery system. I got a low draft number and was in danger of being drafted, toward the tail end of the war. I consider myself to be incredibly fortunate to have avoided being drafted into the horrible and unredeemably stupid meat grinder of Vietnam, thanks to a medical deferment. Who says there are no benefits to having asthma?

Martin

[Selene]

Billy Mitchell lol

"Well, as a general rule, joining the military does mean that you will be expected to unconditionally follow orders. Refusing to obey a lawful order will likely get you a court martial"