Mister Mxyzptlk

bobhhh
That soldiers are humble about their bravery doesn't mean they aren't heroes.

Heroes for doing what? Being 18 and thinking you were immortal? Signing up because the odds of getting killed overseas were lower than the odds of dying from a mix of boredom or crushing poverty in your home town? Staying in because AWOL and desertion pack some REAL serious consequences?

Kids don't join the Army for dreams of glory, they join for three hots and a cot with bennies. They join because the idea of working at the same jobs that their parents work at scares them more than enemy bullets. They join because it looks easier than the other options before them.

I never met a guy who signed his name on the dotted line for any of those horse hockey reasons we hear on FAUX News. We all were dead broke without opportunities so we figured "what the heck, better than workin' at the quicky mart for minimum wage".

Besides, like Zoe says, heroes get other people killed.

I've served with more then one guy who gave up a job where he made more then a million a year to serve in the army. Its not common by any means, but it still happens. Some people still want to serve in some way. Not every one of us used to be a drugged up hack who just needed a job. Not everyone that signs up makes it through basic training. And whoever says their parents job scares them more then bullet is so dumb they most likely didn't pass the ASVAB.

I'm sorry phantom penguin, but mxyzptlk has ANECDOTAL evidence, the strongest kind of evidence there has ever been.

I will not argue that our military budget is too large and that our military is not being misused.

What I will argue with is the attitude which Mxyzptlk treats these recruits. He calls them poor an uneducated.

I think that it is accurate to point out that many recruits are indeed a combination of poor and uneducated. I would also say that those who recruit these young men and women know how to work them.

An admission, I'd say, that he understands that these lives are being bought at a ridiculously low price by what are essentially used car salesmen.

When you know and accept that the government is basically stealing from it's own citizens (and in this case it's a person's life), you have three choices:

1. Accept it as the cost of citizenship, and hope they don't do it to you.
2. Work to change the system.
3. Blame the victims.

I would say that #3 is what we're seeing here. The great thing about choice #3 is that it allows one to have absolutely no sympathy for the victims. Both #1 and #2 admit to injustice, but #3 gets you off the hook.

So, blame the poor and uneducated. But whatever you do, don't try to protect the poor and uneducated from vulture like practices. Don't try to address the reasons for so many people being poor and uneducated. Because in that way lies empathy and compassion.

Its a shame anyone *has* to be homeless in this country. This has been going on a long time -- Walter Reed, Homeless Vets, pitiful post service care for service trauma.

Oh, and if you got seriously injured while serving your country, but didn't serve long enough according to the rules of your bonus? Well you have to give the unearned portion back.

So how many people need to get screwed by the system before they realize the system isn't doing what it was supposed to?

I guess we're still waiting to figure that one out.

Oh, and we spend *way* too much money on our military for what we get -- over 9 billion a month for this war. And as its been pointed out the Pentagon isn't concerned about the price of oil, even though they are the single largest consumer organization in the United States.

We could be just as "safe" with half the military.

I won't claim to be a number cruncher by any means, but it seems the only way the U.S. could do that would be to never leave U.S. soil and that's never going to happen, regardless of whose administration is running the country.

That doesn't mean I agree with the way the wars since 2001 have been managed, not by a long shot. But with all due respect, the answer does not seem so simple as slash and cut the military.

Any other possible suggestions?

Mister Mxyzptlk
Simply pointing out who a good number of military types want to "wrest the false mantle of patriotism from the flag waving charlatans". That's all. If you want to support their choice then you might want to look at Mr. Paul. If you just want to play the blame game for political advantage then go ahead and pick your usual brand of flag waving charlatan.

..Which just goes to prove that our men in uniform are a lot smarter than people think!

Mister Mxyzptlk
I listed several reasons why kids join up and I said none that I ever met (which were quite a few) signed up for love of country. Sure there could be a few who did, but I never met a one of them in all my years. Well, except for the air force guy who joined up to be a missile man so he could nuke some commies. But that wasn't as much patriotism as blind hatred...

Well, I guess it would be kind of pointless to argue what your experience has really been, because you experienced it. But it's worth noting that there's a wide range of veterans from different wars, and I'll bet their reasons for enlisting varied from war to war. Reasoning would tell me that back during WW2 there was a greater sense of patriotism involved, while right now I wouldn't be surprised if the GE Bill and employment weren't a bigger factor.

In the end I think intentions are irrelevant. They did fight. They did risk their lives. I think that deserves a certain degree of respect even if they were in it for the paycheck.

Hawk
Reasoning would tell me that back during WW2 there was a greater sense of patriotism involved, while right now I wouldn't be surprised if the GE Bill and employment weren't a bigger factor.

10 million soldiers served in World War 2 because they were drafted.

Just sayin'.

Know what I'd support? Not some massive payout for every soldier, not some college funding for every soldier... FULL college funding to every soldier who wants it. No matter how long you want to go, no matter where you're accepted, Uncle Sam foots the bill. I would fully support that Bill.

I think we finally agree on something, TNTComic! :)

TnTComic
Know what I'd support? Not some massive payout for every soldier, not some college funding for every soldier... FULL college funding to every soldier who wants it. No matter how long you want to go, no matter where you're accepted, Uncle Sam foots the bill. I would fully support that Bill.

Can you imagine the graduation rate if more incoming college students had the maturity that military service can provide? Not to mention the calibre of graduates, and their effect on the country? Not to mention the quality of soldier you'd get with such benefits on the line.

I'd be happy if they just got decent treatment for their injuries. The GI Bill did wonders for taking your military population and turning them into a civilian workforce.

Mister Mxyzptlk

Ronson
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but the debate is usually about this bit (bold mine):

general welfare

If that were the intention of the founders then why list specific powers at all? Why not just stop after that line? You need to read what Madison has to say about the General Welfare clause.

The general welfare clause as commonly (ab)used by the modern federal government is in direct contravention to the Tenth Amendment, which states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Many Democrats, experts at playing the Race Card to settle arguments, reject the Tenth Amendment on the grounds that the Tenth amendment's "State's Rights" were used to justify racism in the South in the past. Hence discussion of the Tenth Amendment is incorrect, and anyone advancing it philosophically must be a bigot or some other sort of suspicious person.

Many Republicans, experts at using the imperial presidency or the Unitary Executive to achieve their goals, reject the Tenth Amendment on the basis of their inherent belief that the President is above the law, and "anything the president wants to do is legal" (as advanced philosophically by Dick Cheney).

The Founders would find both points of view repugnant.

TitanOne
Many Democrats, experts at playing the Race Card to settle arguments...

I know you want to have some "equivalence" point here to make it seem like one is just as bad as the other -- are you saying the Republicans, with all their talk of nativism isn't playing the race card?

I guess Clarence Thomas wasn't playing the race card when he said that there were forces trying to keep a black man off the supreme court?

Hawk
In the end I think intentions are irrelevant. They did fight. They did risk their lives.

For what? Expanding the American Empire? Punishing a dictator who didn't play ball with the State Department? Why should I respect them any more than I respect the Blackwater mercs who are over there doing much the same stuff and getting a better paycheck?

I think the last time US soldiers fought to protect US citizens from an attack, other than the occasional landing to protect a consulate or other specific business interest in a foreign land, was in the War of 1812. Since then, other than the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese to which FDR responded by promptly attacking Germany, when have US troops attacked the guys who threatened US citizens?

Mister Mxyzptlk
I think the last time US soldiers fought to protect US citizens from an attack, other than the occasional landing to protect a consulate or other specific business interest in a foreign land, was in the War of 1812. Since then, other than the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese to which FDR responded by promptly attacking Germany, when have US troops attacked the guys who threatened US citizens?

Give people money? Balderdash! That sounds like..reparations! Piffle ;)

Mister Mxyzptlk

Hawk
In the end I think intentions are irrelevant. They did fight. They did risk their lives.

For what? Expanding the American Empire? Punishing a dictator who didn't play ball with the State Department? Why should I respect them any more than I respect the Blackwater mercs who are over there doing much the same stuff and getting a better paycheck?

I think the last time US soldiers fought to protect US citizens from an attack, other than the occasional landing to protect a consulate or other specific business interest in a foreign land, was in the War of 1812. Since then, other than the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese to which FDR responded by promptly attacking Germany, when have US troops attacked the guys who threatened US citizens?

I love this, defeating fascism was not a respectable goal for you. It's rare that I am speechless.

Yeah, seriously. I don't even feel like I need to reply.

Mister Mxyzptlk
I think the last time US soldiers fought to protect US citizens from an attack, other than the occasional landing to protect a consulate or other specific business interest in a foreign land, was in the War of 1812. Since then, other than the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese to which FDR responded by promptly attacking Germany, when have US troops attacked the guys who threatened US citizens?

Despite everything, that's pretty much true. The US has acted like 19thC Britain in the 20thC much of the time in its attacks. And even the history of military victories is actually rather skewed... The only real US victories have tended to be over little weakling states they've invaded. -WW2 was pretty much a fully joint victory with the allies, especially Russia, and WW1 similarly.

But aside from interpretations of history, which can skew things in a million different ways and that people tend to feel very personal and nationalistic about (we all do when it comes to our own countries, no matter what our political stripe), the fact is that the reasons for war and its consequences don't change the sacrifice of those who fought.

The problem is the romanticism that surrounds the concept of military service...

Mister Mxyzptlk
Since then, other than the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese to which FDR responded by promptly attacking Germany, when have US troops attacked the guys who threatened US citizens?

I'm pretty sure we attacked Japan too.

bobhhh
I love this, defeating fascism was not a respectable goal for you.

Defeating fascism was just another BS line pitched by the big wigs to get boobs in boots to stop bullets. The Brits were horrible to their colonies and the French made the Brits look positively kind. The Soviets purged from their citizenry as brutally as the Nazis did. And those three were ALLIES! The Japanese were just trying to get what every other nation had at that time, colonies of their own, but the US didn't want them to play like the grown ups were. The Germans were recovering from 20 years of brutal economic sanctions imposed on them from WWI and had a bit of an understandable grudge from that. There were no "good guys" to go riding to the rescue of and no great evil to defeat. While the massacre of the Jews was the most horrible thing to happen since the massacre of the Armenians by the Turks 20 years before it was not the reason for the US entering the war. After all, FDR turned a shipload of Jews who escaped Europe BACK to the NAZIS!

bobhhh
It's rare that I am speechless.

Somehow I doubt that...

TnTComic
I'm pretty sure we attacked Japan too.

Yeah, eventually they got around to it, after a few years and several strategic islands were lost. The Japanese attack just gave FDR the excuse he needed to get into the war he REALLY wanted to play in, the European theater, so he could suck up to the Brits and the Soviets. Eventually he had to go play seriously in the Pacific because the Japanese were doing far better than he and his racist buddies ever thought a bunch of "slant eyes" could do.

Mister Mxyzptlk

TnTComic
I'm pretty sure we attacked Japan too.

Yeah, eventually they got around to it, after a few years and several strategic islands were lost. The Japanese attack just gave FDR the excuse he needed to get into the war he REALLY wanted to play in, the European theater, so he could suck up to the Brits and the Soviets. Eventually he had to go play seriously in the Pacific because the Japanese were doing far better than he and his racist buddies ever thought a bunch of "slant eyes" could do.

Really where do you get this shit? You remind me of general Jack Ripper who has an orgasm and suddenly thinks he has a revelation about global politics.

FDR had great respect for the Japanese considering the US just got their asses handed to them in Pearl Harbour. The notion that he thought little of them after that attack is just plain ludicrous.

Of course he rushed to England and Russia's aid, because strategically, our fresh troops could be a deciding factor there immediately, while cementing our alliance against Japan which attacked us unilaterally. The pacific theater with its air and sea considerations required more thoughtful strategy, and our navy had just taken a severe hit in the initial attack.

Try watching the History channel once in a while.

bobhhh
The pacific theater with its air and sea considerations required more thoughtful strategy, and our navy had just taken a severe hit in the initial attack.

Sounds like the excuses we get from FAUX News about attacking Iraq and Afghanistan...

FDR monkeyed with the Japanese so they would start a fight so he could go play in Europe. He knew old scramble-brains couldn't be goaded into attacking the US so he went for what he could.

If the US was really retaliating for Pearl Harbor why bother with Europe at all? It's not like they were cutting off vital resources to the Japanese by using US resources on Germany and Italy. Heck, all the bombs dropped on Germany didn't weaken the Japanese one little bit. If anything the delay in hitting them back allowed the Japanese to further strengthen their hold on the turf they took.

Mister Mxyzptlk
If the US was really retaliating for Pearl Harbor why bother with Europe at all?

I believe the process went like this:

1) Pearl Harbor
2) US declares war on Japan (ah, those were the days, when we actually declared war when using military force)
3) Germany, as per treaties, declares war on US.
4) US declares war on Germany

There's other axis powers involved, but the general thrust is that the US dealt with Europe because they were going to have to deal with Germany one way or another. Dealing with them while they don't have a strong foothold in France is much easier than letting them build up infrastructure and quell resistance and *then* fight them.

mapaghimagsik
but the general thrust is that the US dealt with Europe because they were going to have to deal with Germany one way or another.

Why? Did Germany have the naval power to threaten the US? The European theater was just a rehash of the same war that had been fought over there since the mid 1800's when Germany bloodied French noses after a long time of being the French's whipping boys. The major powers didn't like the upstarts so they kept getting into fights. Just in WWI and WWII the Brits managed to con dimwitted US presidents into getting into the game to throw the balance in their favor.

Mister Mxyzptlk

mapaghimagsik
but the general thrust is that the US dealt with Europe because they were going to have to deal with Germany one way or another.

Why? Did Germany have the naval power to threaten the US? The European theater was just a rehash of the same war that had been fought over there since the mid 1800's when Germany bloodied French noses after a long time of being the French's whipping boys. The major powers didn't like the upstarts so they kept getting into fights. Just in WWI and WWII the Brits managed to con dimwitted US presidents into getting into the game to throw the balance in their favor.

FDR dimwitted. Nice.

bobhhh
FDR dimwitted. Nice.

FDR was just out ta getcha, you know.

mapaghimagsik

bobhhh
FDR dimwitted. Nice.

FDR was just out ta getcha, you know.

Well which was it? Was he dimwitted or nefariously devious? ;)

bobhhh

mapaghimagsik

bobhhh
FDR dimwitted. Nice.

FDR was just out ta getcha, you know.

Well which was it? Was he dimwitted or nefariously devious? ;)

The thrust of Myxl's entire argument everywhere is that they're out ta getcha. So I guess its nefarious dim wittedness, or whatever.

bobhhh
FDR dimwitted. Nice.

Well, he made the depression far worse than it had to be with his idiotic programs, most of which were overturned by the courts. He bluntly tried to pack the supreme court by doubling its size. He pissed off the Japanese until they smacked the US REAL hard all across the pacific.

Yeah, dimwitted. He almost makes GWB look smart... Almost... I mean, making GWB look smart is pretty tough.

Well this thread has been thoroughly hijacked.