What the Democrats really think of the troops

[mrhnau]

Again, why shouldn't other countries be required to share the burden of being the global cop?

I don't think its fair and I think that most of the world resents the fact that have positioned our country as such.

Simply put, they don't have a standing military any where near comperable to ours. We have superiour technology and the best trained fighting force.

If other nations want to start taking up and dealing with some of the world problems, go right ahead. I'm fine with that. However, I don't see that as a call for us to disarm, rather for those nations to become armed. That requires (GASP!) a standing army! That requires military expenditures, which means taxation.

I personally don't care if the rest of the world resents us for our military. Our countries primary goal should not be to appease other nations, and lay down arms because other nations don't have enough. Sorry, that does not fly with me.

 

[mrhnau]

Michael addressed some of the points that I would make regarding the UN. As far as the thought regarding the US and its role in the world, however, let me ask you this...Do you think that it is fair for the US taxpayer to subsidize all of these other tasks and assume the responsibility from all of these other countries? In my opinion, I would rather pull back and let others share the burden of being a world citizen.

If other nations want to start taking a part, feel free... read my previous post, should be just above this.

Nasty stuff, actually. I feel sad that they were forced to make that sacrifice.

If all the other kids in the global sandbox decide to play nicely, I would agree! The world was under attack by evil men with evil intentions. Laying back, letting Pearl Harbor slip by and letting Europe fall under the hands of hte Nazi's is NOT the right solution. Sitting back and letting evil men with evil intentions destroy national landmarks, kill our civilians in NY and DC is NOT the right solution. Sorry, I'm not willing to let that happen, and I am thankful our national leaders are not either. We can argue about the methods, but if you argue that we should lay back and let tyrants dominate our lives and country, we have some SERIOUS issues.

I believe that the current "threat" is largely self-inflicted. I believe that the best solution is political and not martial. I think that we can largely diffuse the anger against our country by changing what we are doing at home.

I do not believe the current war in Iraq or in Afghanistan is going to ultimately protect our country. I do not believe that either of those military actions were designed to protect this country. I think that the "War on Terror" is actually a war to maintain or hegemony throughout the world and I would vote for any candidate that would extract us from this mess as quickly as possible.

Once they start blowing up our civilians, I start to differ about the political process. Does not sound like they are interested in sitting down and negotiating.

Ben is thinking much how I think, but I would go much further. I think that cutting military spending down to levels that are competitive with other countries is entirely appropriate. We lose so much be having the priorities that we do.

Take a look at my signature.

Again, those countries are not living up to what we are doing. You want them to take a bigger part in the global scale? OK, but they need to up their expenditures. I'm guessing thats not on their agenda.

There are many ways to reach out to the rest of our global citizens. It bothers me that our country is only really prepared to do so militarily. I would change that if I could.

Politics is a nice way to reach out, I'll agree. Military solutions are the last resort, but are NOT to be rules out, especially when faced with imminant danger (Nazism, Fundamental Islamics, etc)

IMHO, disbanding the professional standing army would probably be the type of tax cut that would make the most difference in our lives. I view it as a drain on our national wealth and a grand mis-allocation of our resources.

We could do so much better, IMHO.

We could, if we lived ina perfect world..

Why do you train in martial arts? Alot of people train for self defense. You spend alot of money training. Lets say you go to a bar and a fight starts. You start kicking butt, because you have spent alot of time and money training, becoming the best you can be. Would you call this unjust because everyone else in the bar has not spent the amount of money you have, or spent the time to dedicate themselves to self-defense? Hardly...

So, whats the difference at the global level? Is our nation not doing the same thing? You are not running around the office beating up people with your new found and finely honed skills, but you are likely to defend yourself if the situation arises, or if your family/friends are threatened. Is this not the same thing?

Instead of lowering yourself to the training of the common man, I appaud you for doing so well! If you win a fight, I'd say "good job!", assuming it was just (which can be argued one way or the other of course, but thats a different issue).

 

[michaeledward]

The resolutions they issue are powerless.

If other nations want to start taking a part, feel free....

It seems that statements like this show an incredible lack of what the United Nations actually does. It is the actions it takes, of which the resolutions are a part. I would guess that the resolutions you are referring to are a very small part.

I think your assertions would be akin to stating that Reverend Haggerd's religion represents all of America.

I pointed out that, currently, there are approximately 100,000 blue helmeted Peacekeepers serving in many countries around the globe. And that about 650 of those are Americans. Other countries are taking part. They are putting their people in harms way for the greater good.

Here ... why not spend a couple of hours taking a look yourself.

www.un.org

 

[Makalakumu]

That requires (GASP!) a standing army!

Not necessarily. A joint UN police force could easily be composed of an amalgamation of citizen soldiers who go back to their normal lives when their service is done.

That requires military expenditures, which means taxation.

Correct. I believe that they should share the burden as global citizens.

I personally don't care if the rest of the world resents us for our military. Our countries primary goal should not be to appease other nations, and lay down arms because other nations don't have enough.

I believe that we are global citizens who are no better then anyone else and I think that if the world resents us for our assumptions, that really is a big deal. I believe that everyone on this planet is connected by a common thread and that we are all responsible for each other.

 

[mrhnau]

It seems that statements like this show an incredible lack of what the United Nations actually does. It is the actions it takes, of which the resolutions are a part. I would guess that the resolutions you are referring to are a very small part.

I think your assertions would be akin to stating that Reverend Haggerd's religion represents all of America.

I pointed out that, currently, there are approximately 100,000 blue helmeted Peacekeepers serving in many countries around the globe. And that about 650 of those are Americans. Other countries are taking part. They are putting their people in harms way for the greater good.

I think part of my issue stems from the organization of the UN. With veto power, any veto nation can stop action. In the food for oil issue with Iraq, of course Russia, France and Germany are going to protest an organized assault with Iraq. Same thing happens when any nation is being naughty. If they have powerful friends (visible or not), then they have some degree of protection. I'm not seeing the UN ousting Saddam, dismanteling the Taliban, searching for Bin Laden, creating peace in Korean, Vietnam, Mogadishu (sp). When do they put themselves seriously into harms way? I see other nations helping our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I don't see alot of blue helmets there.

Your definition of "greater good" is decided by a committee... who is to say it is for the greater good? If we don't like it, we veto. If Germany does not like it, they veto, etc, etc... Its an aggrevating process.

Here ... why not spend a couple of hours taking a look yourself.

www.un.org

Wish I had a couple of hours to waste I'll look when I get done with this chunk of work (ie next week hopefully).

 

[Makalakumu]

If all the other kids in the global sandbox decide to play nicely, I would agree! The world was under attack by evil men with evil intentions. Laying back, letting Pearl Harbor slip by and letting Europe fall under the hands of hte Nazi's is NOT the right solution. Sitting back and letting evil men with evil intentions destroy national landmarks, kill our civilians in NY and DC is NOT the right solution. Sorry, I'm not willing to let that happen, and I am thankful our national leaders are not either. We can argue about the methods, but if you argue that we should lay back and let tyrants dominate our lives and country, we have some SERIOUS issues.

In several places in this post, you make the connection between Nazi Fascism/Japanese Imperialism and Islamic Fundementalism. The above section illustrates this. I contend that these are not similar at all. 9/11 was not another Pearl Harbor because the "enemies" behind each event are totally different.

Why do you train in martial arts? Alot of people train for self defense. You spend alot of money training. Lets say you go to a bar and a fight starts. You start kicking butt, because you have spent alot of time and money training, becoming the best you can be. Would you call this unjust because everyone else in the bar has not spent the amount of money you have, or spent the time to dedicate themselves to self-defense? Hardly...

I have no problem with self defense. In think it's important. I have a problem with allocating 10 times more then what we need for self defense...calling that self defense...when it really is for offense.

 

[Makalakumu]

Its an aggrevating process.

That is how compromise works. We need to learn how to do this. The road to tyranny begins with a country that demands that it always gets its way...

 

[michaeledward]

I think part of my issue stems from the organization of the UN. With veto power, any veto nation can stop action. In the food for oil issue with Iraq, of course Russia, France and Germany are going to protest an organized assault with Iraq. Same thing happens when any nation is being naughty. If they have powerful friends (visible or not), then they have some degree of protection. I'm not seeing the UN ousting Saddam, dismanteling the Taliban, searching for Bin Laden, creating peace in Korean, Vietnam, Mogadishu (sp). When do they put themselves seriously into harms way? I see other nations helping our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I don't see alot of blue helmets there.

Your definition of "greater good" is decided by a committee... who is to say it is for the greater good? If we don't like it, we veto. If Germany does not like it, they veto, etc, etc... Its an aggrevating process.



Wish I had a couple of hours to waste I'll look when I get done with this chunk of work (ie next week hopefully).

Are you willing to surrender the United States veto power, if the other side surrenders their veto power? Or will 'Might Make Right'.

There are no blue helmets in Iraq because in the eyes of the world, it is an illegal war. Despite the original twisted rational presented by the Bush adminstration, the United Nations was performing the tasks assigned by inspecting Iraq for forbidden armement. The President of the United States order the United Nations out of Iraq so that he could launch his war.

Looking toward Afghanistan, currently, it is under authorization of NATO. I think it is quite probable that the UN would have an authority and security roll if we decided it was appropriate. I'm not sure we ever asked.


Your use of the term 'waste' in describing a review of UN activities describes a predisposition. Minds are like Parachutes, eh?

 

[Makalakumu]

I hate to take this to a personal level, but who says I do nothing. And why assume that soldiers actually do anything for society?

In fact, I would argue that the purpose of a standing professional army is conquest.

And the red marks start flying...

These are my informed opinions, CZ, not insults. You taking them as such is akin to a Christian claiming that an athiest insults them because they do not believe in God.

Anyway, I'm sorry if you took it as such.

Let's try not to confuse this anymore...

 

[airdawg]

Get the US out of the UN. No other country should have any say in what our American troops risk there lives for. It's a republic. The majority wanted our current president. He, along with Congress decide what happens. Not the UN. Unfortunately, blue helmets make great targets, especialy when the troops wearing them are not aloud to load there firearms.

 

[michaeledward]

Get the US out of the UN. No other country should have any say in what our American troops risk there lives for. It's a republic. The majority wanted our current president. He, along with Congress decide what happens. Not the UN. Unfortunately, blue helmets make great targets, especialy when the troops wearing them are not aloud to load there firearms.

The United States military and the United States participation in the United Nations are not mutually exclusive.

 

[airdawg]

I apologize if I was a little heated in my post, but I don't feel that the US needs any support or permission from the UN for any endeavor.

 

[michaeledward]

I apologize if I was a little heated in my post, but I don't feel that the US needs any support or permission from the UN for any endeavor.

Demonstrating your great understanding of the endeavors undertaken by the United Nations.

The United States is the world's 800 pound gorilla, and therefore should can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, where ever it wants with complete disregard for the remaining 95% of the human population on the planet.

Might Makes Right! Woo Hoo - Wave them flags behind the Newscasters!

 

[airdawg]

Might does not make right. Virtue victorious. I do not agree with most lethal conflicts. My point is, the US is a democratic republic, not a democracy.

Democratic Republic= on election day, we vote for someone to represent us.

Democracy=we all sit around all day every day, starving, waiting for every legal citizen to vote on the issue of weather or not we are aloud to eat.

Any one brave enough to put on a uniform to protect the citizens of our country have my respect and deserves the respect of every couch potato not being shot at that day. Just because the majority of the people support one man who decides to convince our nation to go to war does not make it right, but that is the way our government is set up.

Do I believe it is a good idea to aid other countries when they need military support. Absolutely! but it's not charity if you have been forced to give it.

Also. Where have you obtained your numbers sir? I am a fiend for information.

 

[michaeledward]

Also. Where have you obtained your numbers sir? I am a fiend for information.

All numbers are secret ...

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.




If you promise not to tell, you could probably start here : www.un.org

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/surge2006.pdf

 

[airdawg]

Big brother is watching.

 

[Arizona Angel]

Big brother is watching.

That use to terrify me when I was growing up. I have come to terms with that these days, and relize there is no place to hide.

 

[airdawg]

Especialy from this big brother. HAHA!

 

[Arizona Angel]

Especialy from this big brother. HAHA!

lol, always wanted a big brother. At least I trust this one.

 

[michaeledward]

So, the lead Republican in the country today said ...

The Only Way We Can Win Is To Leave Before The Job Is Done

How dare the President disparage the military ... accusing them of being unable to win if they stay in Iraq. I suppose he's just pissed that the military has issued a 'no confidence' vote on the Great Shield - Donald Rumsfeld.

Maybe the troops would be able to win, if the President and SecDef sent them into battle with the tools the troops wanted, and not the tools the troops had.

Oh, Well.