Some People think all Veterans Are Evil

[Kidlicious]

Elok, that kind of hostility is uncalled for.

------

Army ads looked so cool - i signed right up.
Besides, it was the only way could find a job.
"great place to start" and see the world womanize at discos
and fake going nuts to scam infirmary drugs
so send in the clowns the nato circus is here to protect you
your choice must be ours
yankee corruption or the big bad soviet threat
don't you feel secure sending our top guns to guard your sky?
flying their fighter planes upside down,
stoned out of their minds.
for a real hot time, how 'bout an air show crash?
or a g.i. riding a stolen tank through downtown manhattan
and off the riverbank where he drowns.
fall in with the clowns, remember,
nato is here to protect you with nuclear bombs that come to visit
and decided to stay.

[Chorus:]
attack! attack!
of the peacekeepers attack!

the charge of the joke brigade
in charge we can blow up the world more times than you
we'll show 'em we'll show 'em with radioactive subs
we'll show 'em we'll show 'em with missiles in your back yard
guarded by soldiers on acid during night watch
and generals who care only for fat pensions and bribes
if that don't scare the commies nothing will
except maybe our bradley tanks tripping over themselves
both powers have one goal in common:
to keep germany divided
never strong enough to start another world war occupied by the clowns
is it really you, nato is here to protect?
with berlin type walls when they came to visit
we all decided to stay.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
You're an idiot.

QFT


Let's discuss why communists SUCK.

[Blaupanzer]

We are fairly deep into la-la land here. Do any of you believe it's possible to believe war is exploitive and should not be supported except in defense, and still be possible to honor the veterans of previous wars? If yes, then the antiwar noise is not really associated with yesterday's veterans.

If no, then it is possible that the veterans will come for you one day and hang you from some telephone pole ala the US post WW I. Not a personal threat, just thinking about how these patterns tend to go.

[SlowwHand]

Are you saying you would rather have war on our soil?
David Floyd used to think that, until he matured.

[Unimatrix11]

´exploitive´ - ´war´ - now ponder everyone - just mess with the words ! Throw in words like ´if´, ´then´, and ´is´. Test any sentence derived for validity. Have fun ! (*re-lighting it now* )

[Unimatrix11]

Well, SlowwHand, in Germany, we consider war something you seed and then harvest, now... EDIT: I mean like: You bring it our there and it will come back to You.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles

Originally posted by snoopy369
So, what laws have you changed to better the plight of millions? Or even a few thousand?

Why does it have to be a changed law? I won't take credit, but people like me (some of whom I had worked with) fought for an end to the death penalty, and brought about a moratorium in Illinois and raised the visibility of the debate. I have consistently opposed American attacks on the rest of the world, not just rhetorically, on the internet, but in the real world, losing friends, jobs, etc. People like me stopped the Clinton Administration from a large scale attack on Iraq in the mid 90s. I have struggled alongside tomato pickers in Florida to get better treatment and more money (and we actually won!). Etc.

We may not have changed the world on the scale of a MLK or a Gandhi, but honestly, neither did they. It was the thousands and millions of little people like me and Kid and others who changed the world for the better, each contributing a little bit, which all together made a great change.

I was objecting to Kid's statement and ego, not to you nor to nonviolent means of achieving change. You didn't claim to have personally defended the rights of anyone (and you have, undoubtedly, far more right to do so than Kid). I certainly believe that those who fight for the rights of others in ANY way should be honored. However, sometimes that way needs to be violent, due to the violence of others. If we lived in a perfect world this wouldn't be true, but so long as someone else has a gun, we need to do so as well.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Kidicious


You will have to stop your black and white thinking if you are to understand my argument. That's the only way we can continue. Like I said pacifists are generally against violence, particularly mindless violence. Some go so far as to be completely against it, usually religionists.

That's a good one. I'm against violence also, particularly mindless violence... does that make me a pacifist?

[Blaupanzer]

"Mindless violence," a concept completely without defenders. Did you ever meet anyone who admitted s/he was in favor of mindless violence?

[snoopy369]

Haven't you ever played an FPS? Pretty much everyone there is all for mindless violence.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by snoopy369


That's a good one. I'm against violence also, particularly mindless violence... does that make me a pacifist?

If you don't understand how mindless war is then you are not a pacifist.

[Blaupanzer]

Snoopy, point about FPS taken. But being shot in an FPS only disturbs the mind.

In RL, other parts get rendered. Then some coward pretending to be a Commie, calls you a dupe and a ****** for taking the risk. After that neither of you are for mindless violence although for slightly different reasons.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Kidicious


If you don't understand how mindless war is then you are not a pacifist.

If you had any understanding of war, then you would not state that it was mindless Wasteful, yes. Pointless, perhaps you could argue that. Mindless, however, absolutely not. Most of the folks in a war are using every ounce of brain they have ... and usually they are being directed towards a very specific objective. That does not meet any definition of 'mindless' I've ever seen.

Mindless violence is like a kid shooting up a school.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
"Mindless violence," a concept completely without defenders. Did you ever meet anyone who admitted s/he was in favor of mindless violence?

Fair point but there is an appeal to war in our culture.



Excerp from the culture of war

In theory, war is simply a means to an end, a rational, if very brutal, activity intended to serve the interests of one group of people by killing, wounding, or otherwise incapacitating those who oppose that group. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Even economists now agree that human beings, warriors and soldiers included, are not just machines out for gain. Facts beyond number prove that war exercises a powerful fascination in its own right — one that has its greatest impact on participants but is by no means limited to them. Fighting itself can be a source of joy, perhaps even the greatest joy of all. Out of this fascination grew an entire culture that surrounds it and in which, in fact, it is immersed. Like any other culture, the one associated with war consists largely of “useless” play, decoration, and affectations of every sort; on occasion, affectations, decoration, and play are even carried to counterproductive lengths. So it has always been, and so, presumably, it will always be.

A full discussion of the culture of war would require not a single volume but an entire library. The culture in question ranges from the often far from utilitarian shapes and decoration of armor (or, before there was armor, war paint) to today’s “camouflage” uniforms and “tiger suits”; from war games played by the ancient Egyptians with the aid of tokens on specially made boards all the way to the enormous variety of present-day war games, exercises, and maneuvers; and from Yahweh’s commandments in the book of Deuteronomy, which laid down some elementary rules for the treatment of various kinds of enemies confronted in certain kinds of war, to the numbered paragraphs of today’s international law. It includes the values and traditions of warriors as manifested in their deportment, customs, literature, parades, reviews, and other assorted ceremonies, as well as the endlessly varied ways in which wars have been declared, brought to a formal end, and commemorated.

In many societies, especially tribal ones as described by Tacitus and feudal ones such as Homeric Greece, medieval Europe, Mamluk Egypt, and samurai Japan, the culture of war enjoyed extremely high status. For example, Chrétien de Troyes in Perceval says it was “the highest that God has created and commanded”; a sixteenth-century French knight, Brantôme, called chevallerie “the religion of honor” and claimed that it ought to be given priority over all other forms of culture. By contrast, in today’s self-styled “advanced” countries, for the culture of war to be held in such high esteem is rare. Soldiers, war gamers, collectors of militaria, and even military historians know the score. At best, their culture is seen as a quaint leftover from a previous, presumably less rational, less utilitarian, and less humane, past. At worst, it is denied, put aside, ignored, ridiculed, or denounced as childish “warmongering.” As countless jokes about the (supposed) quality of military intelligence, military law, military music, and even military cooking imply, too often it is despised as loud, vulgar, and crude.

Some people go so far as to claim that war and culture are absolute opposites. Like Lord Byron, all they see is “the windpipe-slicing, brainsplattering art”; as a result, each time a flag is raised or a bugle calls, they look away or stop their ears. Others, while prepared to admit that a culture of war does exist, look at it as an expression of that worst of all bad things, “militarism.” Academics, many of whom are politically on the left, are especially likely to consider things in this light. This may explain why, in spite of the undoubted popular appeal of works with titles such as Medieval Arms and Armor, Uniforms of the Wehrmacht, and Military Aircraft of the World, a scholarly, comprehensive study of the subject has yet to be written. Perhaps it also explains why one volume whose declared subject is “the symbols of war” in the ancient world is completely dominated by discussions of weapons, armor, and tactics.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by snoopy369


If you had any understanding of war, then you would not state that it was mindless Wasteful, yes. Pointless, perhaps you could argue that. Mindless, however, absolutely not. Most of the folks in a war are using every ounce of brain they have ... and usually they are being directed towards a very specific objective. That does not meet any definition of 'mindless' I've ever seen.

Mindless violence is like a kid shooting up a school.

You're making an argument in favor of war because it requires thinking?

That's not really what I meant by mindless, but it's interesting.