[Nobody]

It is not practical for soldiers to pick and choose which engagements they feel like participating in. It disrupts the chain of command and the very fabric or martial life. While you may not like them or appreciate their sacrifice, soldiers protect you and your manner of existence. They set aside for the common good a portion of their personal freedom and submit themselves to governance that stands to place them in harm's way. By and large, they are not evil or brutal or anything less than honorable, but because they follow the mandates of their political masters, they are denegrated. In short, if you dislike what soldiers do, place the blame where it deserves to be placed- squarely on the shoulders of the swine we elect to political office, and ultimately, ourselves as citizens of the society electing them.

Could not have said it better myself.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Your distaste for soldiers is a perfect example. It is not practical for soldiers to pick and choose which engagements they feel like participating in. It disrupts the chain of command and the very fabric or martial life. While you may not like them or appreciate their sacrifice, soldiers protect you and your manner of existence. They set aside for the common good a portion of their personal freedom and submit themselves to governance that stands to place them in harm's way. By and large, they are not evil or brutal or anything less than honorable, but because they follow the mandates of their political masters, they are denegrated. In short, if you dislike what soldiers do, place the blame where it deserves to be placed- squarely on the shoulders of the swine we elect to political office, and ultimately, ourselves as citizens of the society electing them.

Great post.

 

[rockwool]

I was not singling you out with regards to that particular phrase, "high-minded, unrealistic idealism". By that I mean that sometimes the best state of being is irreconcilable with human nature, e.g. most would acknowledge in their 20's that communism would be great if we all worked together for a common good, contributing and reaping equally the rewards of our labor...but once you've worked and lived until your 30s/40s, you realize that some people- for a littany of reasons, many understandable- are just not willing or capable of pulling their fair share of the load yet still demand an equal share of the rewards. As a result, communism was a failed experiment that cost many millions of lives and foregone opportunities for advancement. If the ideal is just not compatible with the real, pragmatic compromise is often the only answer.

Your distaste for soldiers is a perfect example. It is not practical for soldiers to pick and choose which engagements they feel like participating in. It disrupts the chain of command and the very fabric or martial life. While you may not like them or appreciate their sacrifice, soldiers protect you and your manner of existence. They set aside for the common good a portion of their personal freedom and submit themselves to governance that stands to place them in harm's way. By and large, they are not evil or brutal or anything less than honorable, but because they follow the mandates of their political masters, they are denegrated. In short, if you dislike what soldiers do, place the blame where it deserves to be placed- squarely on the shoulders of the swine we elect to political office, and ultimately, ourselves as citizens of the society electing them.

OK. You call communism unrealistic idealism because we've seen it tried in a few countries and it didn't work out there. Well, the warsaw pact countries were probaly the worst **** ever labled as communism, but one of the biggest reason they fell was that they was never left to grow in peace by the west.

Directly after the Russian revolution their "red & white" civil war started and lasted for years. Western countries, USA, France, UK, and maybe more had several divisions there fighting on the white side. Destabilization, like this or similar, have occured in probably all socialist countries and was why the Sansinistas finaly agreed to a democratic election (which they new they would win).

Another reason was because of the arms race with the west. The USSR was probaly spending upto 60% of its GNP before its collapse. But they was never a good example of communism anyways. There is a communist country that stands out and proves you wrong; Cuba. Even though a subject of US blockade for over 45 years and a constant victim of terror from US backed exile Cuban groups, they still have a society where they who aren't capable of pulling their fair share of the load still get an equal share of the reward.

Cuba is such a good example of how this world would be better without a capitalist system, that the world has totally put all news from there in darkness. Unless it's negative or disinformation. Cuba, a third world country, has shown that it can provide for all its people aswell as shown a place where coloured people are fully equal and integrated with the white hispanics. I have not seen that even in a first world country.

This example of an actual system working succsfully is so bad for the US, that it has under this administration, gone from hard to almost imposible for a US citizen to visit Cuba, so that no masses will be able to see it for them selves. If a US citizen travels to Cuba, without a permit form the US, via another country, they will get heavily fined for conducting business with the enemy...


You know, the armed forces do a really great thing. They show to their members that they all depend on each other. That for their unit to be as good as it can be, every body have to do their part as good as possible. If one person in that unit is neglected or if he goes of and does his own thing, it will mean that the unit is weakend.

In the civilian world we are exactly the opposite. We are encouraged to be individuals, to elbow one another while trying to get to the same goal. The parties encoureging this competetivism the most are the ones furthest towards the right, and strangely the parties that have the biggest support from military personel.

So good things do come out of the military, but some how the bulk of its personel fails to apply what they've experianced to a civilian life. Somehow many of these people fail to see that they are being used for personal economical gain by the elite. Somehow soldiers fail to see that they are utterly personal responsible for their actions and not luggage whos fate is in the hands of others. You don't have an obligation to go and do bad things to other humans just because someone told you to. You have an obligation to humanity to do the right thing. If the chain of command tells you to load the showers with Cyclon B, what do you do? Only high officers were tried at Nürnberg, does that dismiss the guilt of the rest of the people who participated in wrongdoings?

US soldiers outside of their own countries borders are threatening mine and my brothers in Iraq, and other countries, manner of existance. Not protecting it. As you said your self, they follow orders blindly as their officers follow the mandates of their political masters. They actually choose to follow that swine that sits in the White House! And I DO put blame on the politicians as I DO put blame on my self when I've done wrong, aswell as I put blame on people for electing politicians that have for decades shown that they don't deliver what they promise.

The chain of command is the worst finger pointing away the blame kinda crap there is. It is supposed to establish responsibility but it takes responsability away from a personal level to a got lost on the way ohh look a pink elefant ohh what where noo you missed it damn what were we talking about dunno another buiscit thanks hows the wheather in Iraq, while looking for it.

The elected leaders of the US didn't seem too keen on admitting their blame in the Abu Ghraib scandal did they?

No, we have to think before we act so that we don't harm anybody or do anybody unjust.