It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Military Misconceptions

page: 7
22
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2009 @ 05:00 AM
link   
If there is a need to be saved by the military it is from the military. Military have always been the opressing forces in any totalitarian regime, and yes, that is where the US is going. By some definitions it might already be there. What happens is not the military suddenly finds it's true calling and gets rid of the politicians and corrupt businessmen, it's that the military lower ranks and a few non psychopathic (or just simply non aligned psychopaths) decide to take over the nation, by fighting not only the corrupt civilians but also the corruption within it's own ranks (and usually higher up than average). These ideas are historical constants. The military is the problem way before it is the solution, and even when it morphs itself into the solution it won't take many decades for it to become the problem again.

Ponerology is not a new branch of knowledge, it's just a new word given to something that has been known for a long time. Ancient peoples have even been known to select against psychopathic behaviour patterns, with violence. But in our modern hierarchical global socieities there are many niches which psychopaths can occupy without being ousted for such. And, as much as you folks don't want to admit it, some of them are in high military ranks and civilians in government with military oversight.

As you all validate each other I would like to leave this consideration: Just because the majority agrees does not mean the majority is right. Your belief systems are your own individual responsabilities but I urge you to keep an open mind on these theories over the near future, as you will probably need to come back to them.

I will be offline for a while now, so you fine folks have a nice day.




posted on May, 17 2009 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


Narcissism is a psychological pathology. They are psychopaths by most medical definitions. Psychopath is a broad term which covers many subclassifications. For the purpose of ponerology we are interested in the ones that have low or non existant empathy levels and a self centered reality system, ie, people who think that what they say or do should have precedence over reality. I would remind you Karl Rove's phrase "we are the writers of history" here (quoting from memory so I may not have it quite right, but that was the idea). And yes, I do realise that after all my posts on this thread I'm open for this angle to be turned around back at me, but it would be a stretch to go that far.

Again, have a nice day.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mindmelding
If there is a need to be saved by the military it is from the military.

Prove this statement.


Military have always been the opressing forces in any totalitarian regime, and yes, that is where the US is going.

Prove this statement too.


By some definitions it might already be there. What happens is not the military suddenly finds it's true calling and gets rid of the politicians and corrupt businessmen, it's that the military lower ranks and a few non psychopathic

What a CRAP statement...the few "non-psychopathic".....I'm embarassed for you ignorance.


(or just simply non aligned psychopaths) decide to take over the nation, by fighting not only the corrupt civilians but also the corruption within it's own ranks (and usually higher up than average).

So now EVERYONE is corrupt in your little reality.
The military are full of psychopaths
All civilians are corrupt
The military is corrupt
and the entire government is corrupt.
In your world, everything is completely corrupt...But I bet you aren't, right?

Seriously, I'm not trying to be rude but you need psychiatric help to deal with your paranoia.


These ideas are historical constants. The military is the problem way before it is the solution,

Excellent so during WWII when Hitler was taking over the world and had his eyes squarely placed on the conquest of America, we should have had no army? When hitler killed 6 million jews, we shouldn't have had a military to stop him? When hitler invaded free country after free country, we shouldn't have had a military to stop him? Do you have any understanding of what would have happened to the world without the military and their incredible sacrifices for our FREEDOM???????


and even when it morphs itself into the solution it won't take many decades for it to become the problem again.

Can you back this statement up or is this just another baseless, paranoid accusation?


But in our modern hierarchical global socieities there are many niches which psychopaths can occupy without being ousted for such. And, as much as you folks don't want to admit it, some of them are in high military ranks and civilians in government with military oversight.

And I think some of them are posting here



As you all validate each other I would like to leave this consideration: Just because the majority agrees does not mean the majority is right.

True. Nor does it mean it's wrong


Glad to hear you'll be offline for awhile. Frankly I'm sick and tired of you trashing the military.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Mindmelding
 


If you are willing to use this argument as basis for your drivel, I suggest you thoroughly school yourself on psychology and its origins. Even the experts can't seem to come to a conclusive, unanimous concensus on the subject.

Not all psychologists, however, have been content to follow what they perceive as mechanical models of the mind and human nature.

Carl Jung, a one-time follower and contemporary of Freud, was instrumental in introducing notions of spirituality into Freudian psychoanalysis (Freud had rejected religion as a mass delusion). The soul is explored in-depth in the Neo-Jungian school of archetypal psychology.

Alfred Adler, after a brief association with Freud's discussion circle, left to form his own discipline, called Individual (indivisible) Psychology. His influence on contemporary psychology has been considerable, with many approaches borrowing fragments of his theory. A recent rebirth of his legacy, Classical Adlerian Psychology, combines Adler's original theory of personality, style of psychotherapy, and philosophy of living, with Abraham Maslow's vision of optimal functioning.

Humanistic psychology emerged in the 1950s and has continued as a reaction to positivist and behaviorist approaches to the mind. It stresses a phenomenological view of human experience and seeks to understand human beings and their behavior by conducting qualitative research. The humanistic approach has its roots in existentialist and phenomenological philosophy and many humanist psychologists completely reject a scientific approach, arguing that trying to turn human experience into measurements strips it of all meaning and relevance to lived existence.

Some of the founding theorists behind this school of thought are Abraham Maslow, who formulated a hierarchy of human needs; Carl Rogers, who created and developed client centred therapy; and Fritz Perls, who helped create and develop Gestalt therapy.

A further development of Humanistic psychology emerging in the 1970s was Transpersonal psychology, which studies the spiritual dimension of humanity, looking at the possibilities for development beyond the normal ego-boundaries.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Hi, sorry for butting in so rudely but,


Originally posted by mf_luder
Your post is illogical.


I would argue that this has little to do with logic and everything to do with perception. As someone who have studied the history of ( since those here were mostly part of the US armed forces) said group there is nothing there that indicates that it fights for 'good' or the protection of the American public in general. MUCH has been written ( one can feign ignorance or be truly misinformed) and the closest it ever came to playing such a role was during the second world war ( largely undone by the bitter post war virtual genocides in Germany) and even then it can be argued that it was a unintended role that led to the American public being able to extract massive labor and wage rights concessions from the government; it was that desperate


Would joining the military because one stands for the protection of his fellow citizens and the constitution not constitute "standing for what you believe?"


And my question here would be why all military members insists on trying to tell the rest of us what they believe they are doing? Why do you insist on telling us that your trying to 'protect us' by occupying Iraqi/Afghanistan and killing hundreds of thousands of them? Why insist that we share the same fantastic delusion that we were 'threatened' by those two countries? Didn't you listen when the US national security state people afterwards admit that there were no danger ( no WOMD; OBL isn't important) and thus logically no self defense motivation?

Where have 'we' ( at least on this forum) suggested that we don't believe you when you claim that you think you are doing the right thing and in fact properly believes that you are 'protecting' us? Would is sensible about such a argument when drafted/'volunteered' soldiers throughout history have held similar beliefs? How many are truly psychotic enough to like battle for the 'rush' of risking and taking life and limb? Isn't it well understood that people go to war to get paid, maintain their 'honor'/neck ( if you get drafted you might survive but if you refuse it's prison at best or the gallows at worse) defend your home and by extension your country?


Or in your mind does standing for what you believe only apply if it's all sunshine and butterflies?

Just curious.


Nope. In my world EVERYONE would have guns ( and a FPS regeneration t type ammo clip) ; if we can't build a world on people who have the means to defend themselves from both foreign invaders and domestic terrorist we are, and we are, building our world on very shaky foundations. In fact i think Switzerland and a few other nations have the right idea with near universal conscription as the only type of army that will ever defend the interest of a nation is a army made up of citizen soldiers; professionalism do save lives but it does not often maintain the liberty of the majority or even a sizable minority..

Volunteers can always be selected based on their psychological makeup and that is more often than not a recipe for the 'clone war' ( citizens wont fight against themselves all that often) situation where the imperialist realises that it just can't trust the general public ( Vietnam speaks volumes) to provide 'citizen soldiers' who will mostly refuse to effectively prosecute/participate in their criminal enterprises and instead do their best to preserve themselves.

Turning your average citizen into a killer can be done but then you need to hang the first few hundred ( as the nazi government were forced to do to discourage mass resistance to enlistment) who refuse to sacrifice their lives for reasons that are obviously other than national self defense.

In conclusion you will not easily gain the respect of your 'fellow' citizens when they can clearly observe you participating in a illegal war loudly proclaiming that your doing it 'for them' ( while getting your paycheck, why not serve for food&board if your so bloody patriotic?) despite their best efforts to keep you from having to fall on your sword; physically or mentally.

You can go fight your wars if you like/must/need to get paid but PLEASE stop claiming that your doing it in our name; when there is a real war 'we' will be next to you in the 'trenches' as citizens throughout history were.

Not in our name.

Stellar



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Hazelnut
 


Typical strawman argument. You're posting a bunch of filler facts about psychology to avoid addressing the specifics of ponerology.

Again, take my argument on if you wish, but to imply that I don't know psychology because I didn't bother to do a paper on it's history before getting to my point is idiotic at best and manipulative at worse. My angles stands on it's own merit and is something being considered by many bright minds the world over.

You know yours psych history. Great. Now how about getting on topic, either the OP's or the people rebutting it?



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by StellarX
 

Stellar, no one is arguing that the citizens won't be right there with the military.

The US has never won a war with the Army that was standing at the time the War broke out.

It was always fought by citizen soldiers.

But do not estimate the purpose and real-time dedication to the US by our Armed Forces.

A lot of folks talk about the absolute "waste" in our fighting in Vietnam, but fail to consider the world situation at the time.

At all times, your military actions are being observed by others. Conclusions are being reached, evaluated, and then modified as conditions change.

The Soviet Union was the power that faced the US during Viet Nam, but they were facing NATO and American troops in Europe.

The Soviets watched the actions of the US in Vietnam and soberly concluded that if the American would fight so hard at such a cost for a country they really didn't give a * about, how much harder would they fight the Soviets if they elected to expand across Europe, where we in fact DID give a *.

So never assume that soldiers don't know what they're fighting for, what they're ultimate sacrifice is for, or their motivations.

While I always fought for the man beside me, I likewise always fought underneath my flag. I knew my bread from my butter, and which side it was buttered on.

Oh, we bitched about the heat, the lack of shelter at times, the bugs, the shortages, the taste of the water, but never would I exchange that for a comfortable sitting at home.

And when Bob Hope would trot out a hottie, and say "Just wanted to remind you boys what you're fighting for," never were truer words spoken.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Glad to hear you'll be offline for awhile. Frankly I'm sick and tired of you trashing the military.


Reading and responding to my posts is optional. You will notice I don't respond to every counter argument I get, just the ones I consider well thought out and polite. I don't really want to be confrontational, just give out the other side, the countering viewpoint.

But I'll make an atypical exception for the last line of your post:

I'm also sick and tired of the military trashing the lives of innocent, both within the ranks and in the gun sights. When I hurt someone it's just with an opinion, when you guys hurt someone it is usually with live ammunition. There is a qualitative difference there, so sorry if I don't tip toe around your feelings.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mindmelding
reply to post by Hazelnut
 




My angles stands on it's own merit and is something being considered by many bright minds the world over.




You're killing me here MindMelt.

Yes, bright minds of the world always make judgement based on "merit."


*walks away scratching his head*

Please.


How you fit 10 lbs. of your bullsh*t in this 5 lb. bag is beyond me.



[edit on 19-5-2009 by Ben Niceknowinya]



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mindmelding
Originally posted by jfj123
Glad to hear you'll be offline for awhile. Frankly I'm sick and tired of you trashing the military.


Reading and responding to my posts is optional.
Yes but sometimes one feels necessary to help stop the spread of ignorance.


You will notice I don't respond to every counter argument I get,

Just lazy?


just the ones I consider well thought out and polite.

Yet you're not polite.


I don't really want to be confrontational, just give out the other side, the countering viewpoint.

That's fine but you must understand that people expect a discussion. If you came here just to make statements then leave, why bother at all. If you're not going to discuss, you might as well be talking to yourself.


But I'll make an atypical exception for the last line of your post:

I'm also sick and tired of the military trashing the lives of innocent, both within the ranks and in the gun sights. When I hurt someone it's just with an opinion, when you guys hurt someone it is usually with live ammunition. There is a qualitative difference there, so sorry if I don't tip toe around your feelings.

So obviously you think that all military personnel are evil and the military has no place in the world. How do you think our country would defend itself if we had no military?



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 06:47 PM
link   
Cowards ever find refuge behind the cover of dialogue and negotiations.

All life is a run, a hide, or a fight.

A coward only knows how to run or hide.

A soldier can run to the fight and ferret out those cowards who hide.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Mindmelding
 


Do I really need to list the differences between narcissism and psychopathy? The information is freely available should you choose to put any effort into researching outside of that one book.

Speaking of which, I've managed to remove most of the junk from the results of my google search for political ponerology and have yet to find anything about it by anyone other than the author. If this is a science, one would think that someone besides the author of the book would have tested it by now since the book has been out for at least four years. After excluding all the results seeking to sell me the book, forum and blog posts, the entire publishers website, and videos, I am left with 635 results out of 45k. Limiting the results to English, so I can actually read what's on the pages, takes me down to 501 results. Adding quote marks around political ponerology so I only get results about it and not ones with both words somewhere on the page but not necessarily together takes it down to 424 results. After going through the first 100 results, I've found nothing to back it up that doesn't come directly from the book.

It looks to me like this "science" is not so much a science as it is one guy who happens to be in psychology writing a book and selling it everywhere. Science is backed up by studies and evidence, this book is only backed by itself from what I can find.

[edit on 18-5-2009 by Jenna]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


You're confusing science the method with science the establishment. This is something I see a lot. People cannot accept an idea on it's own merits so they search for authoritive validation, for the hierarchy.

How about you read it and come to conclusions based on the merits or lack of in the original work? How about you think for yourself?

Swimming in the mainstream will make you a psychopaths prey, as they will feed you nonsense and half truths and keep you docile, obedient and above all ignorant of anything that challenges their control on you.

Still, ponerology is out there, there are a few good blogs and other works, but you're right about it being fringe science so I won't rebut that. The reason why it is important is content, not influence, for now. I expect it to be one of the areas of psychology that explodes.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:21 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Tit for tat posting, unless you can come up with more on topic content that makes me want to reply, we are done.

Have a nice day.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by dooper
 


What the hell are you talking about? Life is much more than fighting. Life is love. Life is creating. Life is dialogue and diplomacy. Life is family and friends. Life is sun, sea and good food and drink. Life is energy.

You are clearly a emotionally fear based person. Not a coward, but a negativist that always focuses on the bad in life, that swims in the dirty waters. Because of that you only see half of reality, you only see the night, the dark. Without even contemplating the stars, metaphorically.

If your thought processes really do revolve around what you just posted I am sorry for the hell it must be in your mind, and can only advise you to change focus, to look within your heart and unblock positive emotions.

Otherwise you will die young(ish) and bitter, as your negative emotions will atract many bad things into your life and expel the good.

And I do know what I'm talking about, not long ago I thought as you did now. It's just a matter of vibration and sympathetic ressonance. If you can drag yourself out of that emotional mindset your life will improve, because how you look at it will improve also. And your behaviour will change.

Your choice.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mindmelding
reply to post by Jenna
 


Narcissism is a psychological pathology. They are psychopaths by most medical definitions. Psychopath is a broad term which covers many subclassifications. For the purpose of ponerology we are interested in the ones that have low or non existant empathy levels and a self centered reality system, ie, people who think that what they say or do should have precedence over reality. I would remind you Karl Rove's phrase "we are the writers of history" here (quoting from memory so I may not have it quite right, but that was the idea). And yes, I do realise that after all my posts on this thread I'm open for this angle to be turned around back at me, but it would be a stretch to go that far.

Again, have a nice day.

Not such a stretch at all. As a matter of opinion, you remind me of my narcissistic mother who argued just the way you do. She was brilliant yet lacking that emotional empathy that draws people towards her and her knowledge. Her skill at alienating people and quest for revenge was unmatched, until you came along.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Mindmelding
 



People cannot accept an idea on it's own merits so they search for authoritive validation, for the hierarchy.


If you were to tell me that a new science had proved that the moon was made of cheese, I wouldn't accept that on it's own merits I would seek something to back it up. If you were to tell me that a new science had been developed that allows us to teleport from one spot to another, I would not accept that on it's own merits I would seek something to back it up. It is no different with this. I am open to learning new things and hearing new theories, but when they are claimed as fact I expect to be able to find something to back it up. To do otherwise is to be too gullible for words, and that is one thing I am not.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


Then read the book, as it's backed up by mainstream psychology.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Hazelnut
 


Sorry to hear you had a troubled childhood. Perhaps you are really using me as a release valve for the anger created by your own traumas? Or perhaps you're just making it up, because after all my years on the internet this is the first time I've seen someone use their mother to insult another person... that seems to me to be truely... psychopathic.

If I were narcissistic I would perhaps consider not posting anonymously on web forums but actually have these conversations at a dinner table or something, and attempt to dazzle people with my brilliance. As it is I am a normal person and I don't think I am at all brilliant or superior.

What I am, however, is opiniated. I am open to counter arguments but I don't change opinions on a dime, I have to feel there is truth forcing me to. So far in this particular thread I have not felt that.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by Mindmelding]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Hi dooper, hope you didn't feel too left out.



Originally posted by dooper
Stellar, no one is arguing that the citizens won't be right there with the military.


Perhaps you are not but 'service' members do seem to find cowards everywhere in civilian life? Why is it that you guys have such a hard time believing that people could have legitimate reasons for opposing 'war' ( to say nothing of the US track record of invading utterly innocent and un-threatening third world countries) other than being 'cowardly' and too afraid to do something? How do so many of you turn their arguments of not wishing to be part of illegal unconstitutional wars into attacks on their personal bravery? Shouldn't we wait until their liberties are actually threatened by heavily armed foreign invaders that managed to get past the rather mighty USN?


The US has never won a war with the Army that was standing at the time the War broke out.
It was always fought by citizen soldiers.


As both of us were clearly aware, yes. The regular volunteer army is used to instigate wars that they sometimes can't end which leads to mass conscription and the like. isn't that a perfectly good reason why a standing army/ USAF should be limited to the continental US with much effort being put into sealift capacity? What will those thousand and more bases do, when attacked, beside providing the US government a pretext for escalation now that US citizens have become involved? Much like asking why the Romans didn't go home after a conquest this question is perhaps both asked and answered.


But do not estimate the purpose and real-time dedication to the US by our Armed Forces.


The purpose of the US armed forces is to follow orders and while the soldiers may believe they are protecting their nation, or whatever they like really, the contracts they have signed tells a very different story as to who and what they are really serving. As i have stated this is not a outright attack on what may motivate American citizens from joining the military or giving a good account of themselves in battle but about who they are sent to fight.


A lot of folks talk about the absolute "waste" in our fighting in Vietnam, but fail to consider the world situation at the time.
At all times, your military actions are being observed by others. Conclusions are being reached, evaluated, and then modified as conditions change.


A lot of folks have not failed to consider the larger world picture and understand that the Vietnam war was fought as perpetuation of the French imperial doctrine which the US hoped to take over in the region. Obviously since US citizens and soldiers are for the most part against the idea of imperialism you can't tell them that so you make up this 'evil enemy' ( the USSR, or even more ridiculously in the Vietnam case the CCP) that 'somehow' have spread it's tentacle's all over the world. What is never discussed is how you 'know' ( like Joseph McCarthy raving about " This document shows/proves " , never really disclosing his 'sources' ) what they are doing without having similar tentacle's and intelligence operations everywhere. What the USSR, Cuba and the CCP and others DID do was threaten the control the imperialist ( who changed their name to capitalist around that time) by merely surviving in their own countries thus allowing the people of the world to think that there were in fact alternatives to imperial/corporate capitalism. It wasn't that they were going to take over the world , they were not trying as 'the documents' showed then ( and certainly now in retrospect when the archives where opened), but that the one's who already had control where rightfully paranoid about having to share the world with rival ideologies when their own people were already fighting corporate capitalism at home.


The Soviet Union was the power that faced the US during Viet Nam, but they were facing NATO and American troops in Europe.


The USSR did not face the US during Vietnam by choice and were mostly compelled to do so by the please of the Vietnamese; it's hard to pretend to say that you will resist imperialism/capitalism and then refuse to aid those who are under attack by the very imperial powers you claim you are resisting. The fundamental fact that you are ignorant of or misrepresenting ( i think you just don't know) is that the Ho Chi Minh were a simple nationalist who would court communism in the short term interest of surviving the imperial french and then the US and allies. This was all documented before that war ever got start but declassified material and statements by the US role players speaks volumes about how little they understood about the world or what sort of lies they will now tell to hide the fact that they willfully destroyed a nation that were not , did not and never wanted to go communist. .

The fact that the Vietnamese fought off a Chinese invasion ( they say it was a 'raid') may or may not in your mind help to prove that they were nationalist, not communist.

This is all detailed in "Killing hope" which sources directly from the Pentagon papers which goes into some detail as to how many times Ho Chi Minh tried to gain the help of the US in the Vietnamese struggle of independence against the various imperial powers. Basically he trusted the US more than he trusted Stalin's idea of 'communism' ( it wasn't) and wrote eight letters to the US state department and Truman himself. The following might sound familiar :

"All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Would you believe me if i told you that that is how the declaration of independence Minh framed in 1945 opens? All just a communist conspiracy, right?

As i said it's all in the Pentagon papers but hey, that's a 'liberal conspiracy', right?


The Soviets watched the actions of the US in Vietnam and soberly concluded that if the American would fight so hard at such a cost for a country they really didn't give a * about, how much harder would they fight the Soviets if they elected to expand across Europe, where we in fact DID give a *.


Yes, establishing authority by proving that you will kill millions of innocents and throw away the lives of 200 000 of your own in the process. I think they got the message that they were in a struggle for their very survival long before Vietnam courtesy of the numerous western ( Yes, Hitler did pretty much as he was expected to beside for going west first) western invasions of Russia in the the century before.


So never assume that soldiers don't know what they're fighting for, what they're ultimate sacrifice is for, or their motivations.


Look even you clearly don't know what you fought for , or more important what you didn't fight for, and your way past your fighting prime. I will assume that soldiers know what they are fighting for when they stop fighting illegal, immoral wars against 'enemies' that never threatened to or in fact attacked the United States of America.


While I always fought for the man beside me, I likewise always fought underneath my flag. I knew my bread from my butter, and which side it was buttered on.


Yes, drafted soldiers fight because it suits them, but more often than not they actually believe the propaganda, to believe that they are doing their country a service; something they discover to be quite the lie as things go along and people die in the supposed defense of 'liberty'.


Oh, we bitched about the heat, the lack of shelter at times, the bugs, the shortages, the taste of the water, but never would I exchange that for a comfortable sitting at home.And when Bob Hope would trot out a hottie, and say "Just wanted to remind you boys what you're fighting for," never were truer words spoken.


Why are you so ready to give up the comforts previous generations died to arrange for both themselves and you? Why do you so easily march off to war against people that could never harm your country? Why the irrational fear of the 'communist' and the even more irrational attacks on those who were by no means communist before they were forced to side with whoever were in fact willing to supply the weapons thy desperately needed to fight the ACTUAL invaders&occupiers?

All i see is the accusation that someone must be a coward for not wanting to fight and yet i know for a fact that men would rather risk their lives and kill innocents than risk being called cowards for not wanting to fight wars they know to be wrong; the people who pick up guns and march off the war are more often than not the real cowards who would rather kill or be killed than face the possibility of jail them or public derision for doing what they knew to be right.

So from now on if you feel compelled to call those who refuse to march to war without a legal reason or moral obligation 'cowards' i will could either call you a coward for not having the guts to refuse to participate or ignorant/misguided for having yourself literally used and abused by the same old imperial system the founding fathers and others fought for.

So much for the 'brave' who are on average no braver than they are misguided and ignorant; at least the nazi's had to hang Germans to inspire them to go to war but what would your defense have been if another nation had the power to prosecute you?

I don't for a moment buy into the 'peace' at any cost notion but Vietnam did as much to expose America's weakness to potential enemies ( who are acting largely in self defense given the clearly irrational imperial aims of the US national security state) as Iraq is doing today and if this course is kept up i am afraid all those nightmares about 'enemies' might come to pass.

Stellar




top topics



 
22
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join