Don't go, Don't kill - The hypocrisy of repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell

Iraq has its shot at real freedom. If they blow it they blow it. We need to be there for our purposes, mainly keeping crazy people from coming over here and killing Americans. If they get freedom out of that, so much the better.


I don't know, but living in civil war is not freedom.

Most people in the West have no idea what Iraq is: an artificially created nation comprised of many different tribes who do not get along. Hussein's dictatorship kept a lid on it. not that is off, there is no freedom to be had.
 
As the expense of these wars and of our unfunded entitlements hit Americans, more and more people are going to be asking some very difficult questions. I believe that when the US dollar breaks (or the English Pound or the Euro - they are all linked together), everyone will become anti-war and anti-empire. We are watching our wealth be looted before our eyes in order to maintain 737 military bases in foreign countries across the world.

What people need to realize, and this is something Ms. Sheehan is pointing out, is that when you enlist, you choose to serve this vast network and do all that commands. Even if we put the horrors of war fighting aside, the cost of this is helping to bankrupt the nation. Thus, Serving doesn't protect America, it propels it toward it's doom. The article doesn't make this point, it focuses more on the irony of taking a step toward equality in an organization that regularly violates human rights. However, I believe this is something to consider as well.

This is why Congressmen Ron Paul and other libertarians want to vastly reduce the size of our military. They understand what the long term effects will be of maintaining a gargantuan military industrial complex. We sacrificed our wealth to it. We are sacrificing our personal freedoms to it. Soon, we will sacrifice ourselves to it if we do not collectively see the truth of the matter.

I don't want to see the dollar break and our Constitution become just another piece of paper. I don't want to see WWIII go down and watch my family live in a police state. This world wide empire is not something the US can maintain. It will break us with fire and famine and poverty just as it has broken every other country that has attempted it.

I want to see peace in my lifetime. I want to see my money and my labor go to what I choose rather then go to the corporations so they can bully weaker countries. I want to see an end to the secrecy and corruption that the MIC causes. I want to live in a free society where the strength of our minds leads us rather then the barrel of a gun.

Repealing don't ask don't tell isn't a step toward freedom because it only helps the cause of it's greatest enemy. Force.

Don't go, don't kill.
 
British Pound..please! It may be a small thing to you but it's hugely annoying to the Scots, Irish, Welsh and Cornish to be totally ignored and to be lumped together as English. They aren't English and shouldn't be called so. It's a case of getting your facts correct, if you can't get that right what about the rest of your arguments?

Very unlikely that the British will ever become anti war btw, we've been doing it for a few thousand years and I doubt we will stop any time soon.
 
Iraq would at least become 2 countries. Sunnis and Shiites each with their own, after a fair go at ethnic cleansing. Then the Kurds will stir their own shitpot, which will spread into Turkey, further destabilizing the region.
 
The beginning of the Middle East problems....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/middle_east_01.shtml

"It is perhaps only proper to note that if Germany had won the war, the Ottoman Empire would have been expanded, subjecting many Arabs and other nationalities to its rule. And if the French and British had granted 'self-determination' to the inhabitants of this region it is possible that the result would have been the balkanisation of the area, with fragile and often antagonistic fiefdoms and kingdoms prevailing. It seems likely that, no matter how this war in the Middle East had been resolved, the region was destined to suffer instability and conflict in the years ahead."

Heads they lose, tails we win.
 
Oh, well never mind then. Carry on.


Look, you are discussing international affairs and yet you can't get countries correct, there is no such thing as an 'English' pound, it's British. You may think that's being pendantic but Scotland, Wales and Ireland have their own governments, they use British Sterling as their currency. While there is of course a British government you are insulting a hell of a lot of people by calling the these countries England, much the same as if you were to call the Iranians Arabs. You have to understand the whys and wherefores of a country before you can start making statements about what you think they should do.
As Canuck has pointed out there are different people, nations even, as well as factions in Iraq and if you can't understand that we have different nationalities in the UK how are you going to understand Iraq?
 
I understand all of that. Sometimes, people just type the wrong word. Mele kalikimaka me ka hau'oli makahiki hou.
 

In the 'Find Out More' books section of the article it lists Paris 1919 by Margaret MacMillan, but it shouldn't the Treaty of Versailles be more prominently featured in the aftermath section? Afterall, it planted the seeds many of the conflicts and wars, including those far away from Paris in the Middle East and the Far East.
 
In the 'Find Out More' books section of the article it lists Paris 1919 by Margaret MacMillan, but it shouldn't the Treaty of Versailles be more prominently featured in the aftermath section? Afterall, it planted the seeds many of the conflicts and wars, including those far away from Paris in the Middle East and the Far East.

Great point.
 
In the 'Find Out More' books section of the article it lists Paris 1919 by Margaret MacMillan, but it shouldn't the Treaty of Versailles be more prominently featured in the aftermath section? Afterall, it planted the seeds many of the conflicts and wars, including those far away from Paris in the Middle East and the Far East.


The Treaty of Versailles only mentions specific colonies and interests being handed over to either the French or the British this includes Egypt, Siam and China.
http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/versa/versa3.html

http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/versailles.html

It was the Ottoman Empire rather than the German one that was carved up by the Allies to make the countries we more or less know now in the Middle East.
 
maunakuma, welcome to my world.

Well, thanks, but this thread is putting forward and argument that is ultimately going to lose at this time. The thesis that we respect people for the merits of their deeds and not their title or profession applies in many areas, but not with soldiers. Even if they are stuck in some stinking pit doing terrible things on our behalf, we are taught from a very young age to give our support no matter what because they choose to go and serve the country and put their lives on the line.

Our society has benefited from this in the past. This belief is what has allowed us to form our empire and extend our power throughout the globe. Our hegemony is the reason why the US Dollar is the world's reserve currency. The problem with any empire is that it eventually bankrupts the States that try and maintain them. It happens every single time and it's happening now. The US charged these wars on the global credit card and we haven't even begun to pay for it. When this is combined with all of the other unfunded entitlement programs that have been stripped for wars and corporate welfare, it creates the financial perfect storm that will ruin us.

There are a lot of factors that contribute to this perfect storm, but I believe that one of the biggest is that Americans tend to support any war as long as they can't see it and it doesn't affect them. The State creates a veil over wars by controlling the information that people see.

The Alternative Media, Wikileaks, and the Internet are penetrating this. They are showing people that as we expand these wars into other countries and kill more people, we are never going to run out of enemies. And, as the anger in the region builds, in order to make any "progress" we need to become increasingly more brutal. And, as we get more brutal, the anger builds and we have even more enemies to fight. This is the fundamental nature of the wicked deathspiral that wipes out every Imperial State. And that suicidal nature is enabled by our unquestioning support of the people who are perpetrating the wars.

The argument that our society shouldn't support the wars or the people who fight in them makes logical sense because of the nature of our forces. Everyone choose to be there, for whatever reason. If the public disapproves of their actions and service, not only do the wars stop politically, but people stop volunteering for them en masse. If that happens, we voluntarily give up our world wide hegemony and we might be able to preserve our personal freedoms and our prosperity. If we continue on the deathspiral, however, we will most assuredly lose both of those things.

This argument loses because we haven't reached a tipping point. There are too few people who have internalized the true costs of this war and the ultimate price we are going to pay. As we travel down this road, and the expense mounts, and the bodies pile, and the police state that naturally grows in every failing empire builds, more and more people will start to see the nature of this thing.

When US citizens are taxed up front for the wars, when the dollar breaks and the economy doesn't function, when they try to conscript us, when US citizens cannot travel any where without being searched like a criminal, when the State cracks down on political dissidents, when the promised entitlement checks come in the form of IOUs, etc. When all of this happens, the whole thing comes crashing down and people are going to have to do some serious soul searching. We are going to have to choose to live in a free, prosperous, and peaceful society, or an impoverished imperial tyranny.

The argument that we shouldn't support the wars or the people who fight them is a loser for now, but time and the nature of this deathspiral makes it increasingly likely that it will be accepted. Until then, we race toward the cliff and listen to people tell us that there is no cliff. There will be some people who choose to ride this vehicle straight into the abyss rather then get honest with themselves. When the tipping point comes, the outcome will be decided by the numbers of intrepid and courageous individuals who decide to go against tradition and the reactionaries who simply refuse to own up to anything resembling personal responsibility.

I understand the part that I play in this symphony and I refuse to play a song of death. Don't go, don't kill is a way of telling others not to play this song.
 
The Iraqis weren't the ones coming over and killing people. The Iraqis invaded Kuwait which no one actually cared about, what caused concern was the oil might dry up so a war was launched against the Iraqis. Kuwait was 'freed' at least from Iraqi ocupation, it remains one of the least 'free' and undemocratic countries in the world. George Bush jnr decided to do what his dad didn't, that is get rid of Saddam. For many reasons none of which included democracy for the Iraqis a second war was declared on Iraq.

It sounds good 'oh we are fighting for the safety of the world and for democracy in Iraq' but it's a load of waffle designed to justify an unjustifiable war.

Tell me, please, what constitutes a "justifiable" war.

To me, what is justifiable or not may be different then what it is to you. You can choose to agree with, or disagree with, the reasons for going to war, but that doesn't make your position more "justifiable" then mine.

If I were to tell you that I am taking troops to war in order to ensure price stability in the oil trade in order to insure that Americans had adequate access to oil at reasonable prices, would that make my war justified? And, if I don't go because you said it was unjustifiable, and the economy of my country collapsed, or people died due to not being able to have access to enough home heating oil, would that have then justified my position?

Does there always have to be some moral justification to war? If so, on what / who's morality do we base it?
 
Do you actually know how we fund our welfare programmes? We pay for it through insurance, yes just like you do. Whoever is working pays National Insurance contributions, this is matched by our employers, this funds the benefits like old age pensions, unemployment benefit, disability benefits etc. It also mostly pays for the National Health Service along with tax money so you see we pay for our healthcare just the same as you do but if we can't afford it we still get healthcare.

No, that is nothing like how we do it.

Call it what you will, your "health insurance payment" is still a tax, which is completely unlike what we have here. And your premium, from what your description sounds like", is based on your income, just like your taxes. If you can't afford your health insurance "tax", then you still get those services, just like you would get the services of your military if your couldn't pay your "regular" taxes.

Plus, I can also choose to whom I pay my insurance. It doesn't sound as if you can. And even if you can get your own private insurance there, it sounds as though you would still have to pay into the system based on your level of income. Sounds like a tax to me, similar to the public school system in the U.S.

Here, if you don't pay your premium, you don't get the benefit of the insurance.
 
Bill,

The main issue that I have with the course of your arguments is that it seems to make out that violence is the sole solution to this problem. Now, I am certainly not one who is against violence. In fact, I also don't subscribe that violence should be the last resort only.

But the question that remains is whether what we are doing really facilitates our ultimate goal, whatever that goal may be. And, to support maunakumu's position, in order to make informed choices in what we like to call our Constitutional Republic, why would our aims need to be hidden if they are the morally correct ones to have. (This is different then having all of our methodologies known due to security concerns.)
 
No, that is nothing like how we do it.

Call it what you will, your "health insurance payment" is still a tax, which is completely unlike what we have here. And your premium, from what your description sounds like", is based on your income, just like your taxes. If you can't afford your health insurance "tax", then you still get those services, just like you would get the services of your military if your couldn't pay your "regular" taxes.

Plus, I can also choose to whom I pay my insurance. It doesn't sound as if you can. And even if you can get your own private insurance there, it sounds as though you would still have to pay into the system based on your level of income. Sounds like a tax to me, similar to the public school system in the U.S.

Here, if you don't pay your premium, you don't get the benefit of the insurance.

The answer wasn't directed at you it was directed at Bilichik but I'll reply anyway. Whatever you think of our system or call it, we like it that way and if put to the vote...again..we will keep it. Tax or no tax you pay your NI and you know what it's for, Bilichik seems to think the government hoicks money off us willy nilly for anything it likes. Tha's his idea of a socilist state even though we have a Conservative/Lib Dem government not even a Labour one.

Having universal healthcare is one of the best things about this country, whatever you think. The NHS may not be perfect and you will find plenty to moan but really we are very proud of the fact that you don't have to be rich to afford treatment as you did in the bad days before the NHS.
 
well 'mrs sheehan's' 'essay' seems like a lame cop out to me. In that case why pass any laws protecting groups of people or promoting equality or anything else at all, since they 'won't stop people from doing stuff' anyway?
 
The answer wasn't directed at you it was directed at Bilichik but I'll reply anyway. Whatever you think of our system or call it, we like it that way and if put to the vote...again..we will keep it. Tax or no tax you pay your NI and you know what it's for, Bilichik seems to think the government hoicks money off us willy nilly for anything it likes. Tha's his idea of a socilist state even though we have a Conservative/Lib Dem government not even a Labour one.

Having universal healthcare is one of the best things about this country, whatever you think. The NHS may not be perfect and you will find plenty to moan but really we are very proud of the fact that you don't have to be rich to afford treatment as you did in the bad days before the NHS.

I made no judgement as to the effectiveness of the NHI, or whether Brits as a whole like or dislike it. I was merely pointing out that there is an essential difference in the systems and how they are run.
 
Back
Top