It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


The American "Hero"

page: 7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 10:42 PM
reply to post by Brood

I very rarely post on here but read threads every night. This thread has motivated me to post. The thing is you are basing your argument on your opinions and your emotions, not facts. You have stated several times that most of the world feels the same as you. How do you know this? Have you talked to most of the world?

posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:10 PM
Today, the true heroes of America are no longer soldiers (sorry soldiers), but patriots who know the time and defend the values that the US once had in the days of the founding fathers.

The greatest enemies aren't found outside of US, but within. There are people who want to turn this country upside down, using the democracy system to gradually gain control of the US government. Those who were considered extreme, or radical, now hold offices in the government, including the highest office.

When are they going to turn US into communist regime, or fascist, whatever you call it. The government is becoming bigger and getting her hand on every facet of citizens' life.

We need true patriots to speak out and rise up against the tides. The enemies have been waging attacks on freedom and liberty non-stop. Don't get distracted by endless wars that politicians are eager to wage because wars give them more power and distract us from their agendas and crimes.
American heroes.
In fact, rumor has that the government train the army to enforce curfew in city using Iraq as training ground, and plan to use these training on US one day. In fact, the politicians sort of plan/anticipate the economic crisis to come one day because they know what they are doing to the country will cause it to come.

Guys, be the true American heroes, restore the American dream!

posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:41 PM
reply to post by pexx421

I'm going to try to stop with the "quote" "reply" "quote" "reply" format I've been using. That's my usual way, but my posts are running to excess, and I'm sure are tiresome to read, so I'll try a different route.

You mention Unocal specifically, and I appreciate that. it gives me a target to boycott. I've not seen any specific threats they made against the Taliban, but I'll dig into it.

For your ID of the fledgling democracies, and Nelson Mandela in particular, I can only say that I never had any great love for the man, as I always saw him, and his organization, as in the enemy camp, but not a specific threat against the US, nor am I aware of any US actions against him. I was also under the impression that he was the guerrilla faction, not the government faction (to be overthrown as 'legitimate'), and that his guerrillas eventually won, placing him in power - so I've always thought his example was quite the opposite from a "successful US overthrow". To be painfully honest, I've never differentiated him from Robert Mugabe, and have always seen them as two peas from the same pod. Africa is a strange place, and perhaps harder to make sense of than the middle east. Lots of good mercenary stomping ground for several years, because everyone is constantly trying to overthrow everyone else, but basically a dangerous and non-sensical place. The way folks suffer there will rip the heart right out of you if you've got one to begin with, yet it keeps going on, and has forever in the past, even beyond the era of colonialism. Even the muslims took advantage of the place - that's how the slave traders got slaves to trade to begin with, from islamic exploitation of the natives.

I'm not sure what angle you're approaching MKULTRA from, but in my view it was illegal because of 1) operations conducted WITHIN the US (a big fat no-no for CIA) and 2) the percentage of subjects who were not given the opportunity for informed consent or refusal. Also, I'm unclear if you are trying to link that with corporate malfeasance or what. I personally blame it on pseudoscience run amok, but that's just my own opinion. It doesn't follow, for me, to condemn an entire organization for a single illegal operation years prior, or even a small group of illegal operations. Sure, prosecute the offending parties, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Where were the attacks prior to WWII? On the shores of Tripoli, for one place. The US wasn't at war with anyone when those started, so I'd have to class them as "unprovoked". There were also a couple of cases, in Tennessee I believe, where lone jihadists went off under cover of more serious events. Then there's the "Muslim Brotherhood" connection, which has operated in the US for quite a long time, but most of that is planning and strategy, rather than simple coarse attacks. That's just the US involvement. If we include the rest of the world, the unprovoked attacks go back for quite a long time before the US even was. I'm assuming we are restricting the discussion to Islamic attacks at this point.

I have a sneaky suspicion that neither we nor Israel will be dealing with Iran in any sort of direct confrontation, but I bet it will be dealt with all the same. That's just my gut feeling, together with a couple of other things I've noticed to inform it. I could be wrong. I think all this "Iranian attack imminent" hysteria is really just the right hand distracting the attention from what the left hand is doing. You know that the Saudis, among others, have a long history of bad blood with Iran, right? I'd be watching THAT space. The Persian/Arab rivalries go back a long time, further even that the sunni/shia rift. BOTH of those differences of opinion will likely figure into what's coming, I would think. This is a BAD thing for the Iranian people. They really ought to wrest control back before it's too late, and prevent the governing body there from creating any more "excuses" for an attack. They really could get back to their former glory, with the right care and feeding.

Technically, as I said before, Afghanistan and Pakistan are in southwest Asia, not the Middle East. Therefore I didn't include them in my assessment. I believe that hostilities OUGHT to be going on there, and that the Iraq war should not have happened at all at this point in time. Be that as it may, taking history as a guide, hostilities will NEVER end in the middle east, US presence or not.

Regarding Afghanistan in particular, we really ought to be there, and be fighting like we meant it. That war should have been wrapped up 5 years ago, but it's been terribly mismanaged, in my opinion. That's not the soldiers faults, that's the generals and politician's faults. The soldiers are doing a hell of a job with what they've been given to work with, including the ridiculous ROE's, and the silly-assed higher ups who think you can somehow fight a "nice war". What an oxymoron. We'll always get mired up trying to fight nice wars, and then we'll have what we have right here in this thread - wars that drag on and on, and folks getting thoroughly fed up with them. Better in my opinion to do it right, get it done, get back to a state of peace.

Regarding your list of corporate types (Monsanto was the only specific there, but I'm getting a better idea of what you mean), I don't do business with any of them directly already. "Big Oil" perhaps indirectly, as I sometimes use synthetic materials probably derived from oil. Now, if EVERYONE would jump on that bandwagon, their fate would be sealed. I'm not holding my breath, though. I presume they would then have to go the route of the insurance industry, and get government to pass a law to force us to buy from them, but there again, I'm not going to, and if everyone else did the same, what are they gonna do? Not enough jails or guards for ALL of us. As it is, I'll likely have to bite that bullet (probably literally) all by my lonesome. So be it.

For your casualty figures, they seem inflated to me, but of course I wasn't there to count them myself, so I reckon I'll have to let them stand. On a couple of specific points, though, the 20-40 million mark for Indians seems pretty grossly inflated, especially if the "we" we're talking about there is really the US. The most reliable estimates I've seen of the native US population is around 4 million total at the zenith, and not all of us were exterminated. I wouldn't be here now if we had been. The Phillipines estimate, I don't know enough to argue about. I can point out, however, that that was another case of pre-WWII muslim troubles, as we were there fighting islamic "Moros". I'm not real clear on WHY we were there in the first place, however, so it's possible you have a point there. The Laos and Cambodia figures also seem pretty high, considering that we were just there bombing the living hell out of the Ho Chi Minh trail, and interdicting arms and equipment supplies carried mostly by North Vietnamese. Cambodia in particular is curious, as you mention 3/4 of a million deaths on that part of the trail, but are strangely silent on Pol Pot's far more thorough purge. Fair enough, though, since Pol Pot was just killing off his own, and wasn't acting on behalf of the US.

He was, as a matter of fact, in the opposition camp.

Always glad to oblige, and I'm happy I could keep you entertained. Until next time, then!

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 12:14 AM

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
I couldn't tell you how my mate conducts himself in-theatre, but he's pretty intelligent & got his promotions young, so I'll guess that whatever else he is, a complete dick isn't one of them.

I was going on your information that he'd been 12 years British military. That by itself says a lot, as they're a pretty professional crew, and surviving 12 years of it isn't for Rambos. I would think any cowboys would have been weeded out long before then. Further, your characterization of quick promotions and a "loyal" friend, the operative word there being loyal, only reinforces that.

I take your point about some kind of diversionary or general arseholery type mission, but I have a real problem imagining this bloke falling into something like that. Its been a fair while now so I'll ask him to tell me more: whatever evidence there may have been must be long buried by now.

I wasn't speaking about specific missions, really, but generally the outfits. Some are top notch, some are so so, and some are downright comic if not tragic.Even those with generally good reps have their moments. I think Executive Outcomes had a pretty good rep at one time, but even they have had their blonde moments. Same for DynCorp (eastern Europe fiasco, anyone?) and some others. Wackenhut had a generally "good" rep among some circles, and a horrid rep among others. They've been bought out by foreigners now, Danish G4S, but still run some US government contracts, so I washed my hands of them. That's just not cricket in my book. They've fired up a whole new subsidiary of Wackenhut, which is itself a subsidiary, called "Armor Group", or something like that, which has already been involved in at least 2 fiascos in the current war theaters. In one instance, one of their guys shot another one of their own guys in some piddling little argument and killed him. I think it was a German shot a Brit. In another, there was an improper party in Afghanistan that got out of hand, and 9 or so of them had to be quietly flown out of the country post haste, and were properly cashiered, but the damage was already done.

Some times, you just fall into the wrong crowd, even with the best of intentions. There is a board here in the US called SOCNet where one can go to get information on who is "good" and who is "bad", from the contractor's viewpoint.

Back to the topic though, I do know that some of his time in the army was spent in more than usually dangerous conditions directly related to security within the UK. Nonetheless, I dont consider him a hero, & thats not familiarity breeding contempt either, because I respect him a great deal as a decent dad & loyal friend. Its just that I know for a fact that his service was far from selfless. He enlisted because he knew he'd not have to worry about housing or food, he'd have money in his pocket & get to visit strange & exotic places, meet strange & exotic people & shag the women! As soon as he'd had enough of that, he quit - which I respect him for all the more.

Now, heroes are human too, with the same failings and foibles as the rest. Doesn't make them NOT heroes, it just makes them human. They're not larger than life, nor are they always on heroic point. Heroes are those who rise to the occasion under difficult circumstances when others fail or crumble. They don't have to be killed doing it, but often are. When they're not being heroic, under normal, mundane circumstances, they're about on a par with the rest of us, maybe slightly above, maybe not. That's why I say you never know who it's going to be until the grease gets hot.

What you describe there seems to me to be a fairly normal, average young man. Other things you've mentioned about him lead me to suspect he may be a cut above the rest, but I reckon you would know better than I, since he's your acquaintance.

That, of course, is just my two pence.

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 03:06 AM

Marines brave fire

I happen to know the LCPL in this story, so you people that say our military are terrorists, stuff THAT in your frikkin pipe and smoke it!

edit on 15/9/10 by HomerinNC because: fixed URL

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 03:53 AM
reply to post by nenothtu

Heroes are those who rise to the occasion under difficult circumstances when others fail or crumble. They don't have to be killed doing it, but often are. When they're not being heroic, under normal, mundane circumstances, they're about on a par with the rest of us, maybe slightly above, maybe not. That's why I say you never know who it's going to be until the grease gets hot.
Fair enough. Thats pretty much the point I was trying to make: merely wearing the uniform doesn't make anyone a hero. I have sympathy for those that get wounded & the families of those killed, but that doesn't make them heroes either; going further, I'll bet some of them got messed up because they were negligent or just plain stupid.
I once did something that many would consider heroic. I expect that I would have received some kind of community recognition or some such, but as it happens, I had some serious issues with the police at the time, so I had to make myself scarce before any emergency services turned up. You know what? I'm far from a hero.
I did it pretty much without thinking &, even tho it was potentially very dangerous, the consequences never even crossed my mind. There was no fear to overcome, I was doing it before my emotions could catch up. It was reckless & I promise you, if I had taken a moment to think, there's no 'kin way I'd have done it!

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 04:00 AM
reply to post by HomerinNC
Mate, I'm getting "Sorry this article is no longer available." from your link. Can you tell us the story?

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 04:05 AM
I fixed the url click on the link now

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 04:07 AM
reply to post by Brood

It's funny how you lump everyone together to make your point. You are the very person you hate. It's ironic in a way and sad in another. I suspect from your writing that you are a child and as time goes on you will learn not only common sense but that looking at the world with such narrow glasses only makes you look foolish.

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 12:03 PM
reply to post by Bunken Drum

I would have to agree with you on a few points. Simply signing the dotted line and strapping on your boots doesn't make you a hero. Its what an individual does once the boots are on the ground that makes them a hero. I've seen Soldiers and Airmen charging negligently through incoming small arms fire to provide direction and security for civilians caught in the crossfire. I've seen Soldiers take rounds pulling their buddies out of the sh__ storm. I've seen men give their MRE's and water to impoverished civilians. I've had to watch a few of my good friends die because we were unwilling to call in fire support in close proximity to civilians. Those are heroic deeds, and you can't justify or nullify heroism by the conflict itself. It's the actions a man (or woman) takes during that conflict that determine their merit.

I like what nenothtu was mentioning, about talking to your enemy on the other side of the line. I've seen the same little bastards that were trying to put a hole in my head perform some extremely selfless and heroic deeds. I've watched "insurgents" be killed because they turned around to drag the body of their dead brother off the battlefield (regardless of the motivation, does the term "Never leave a man behind" ring a bell?). The bottom line is that as long as we are engaging in conflict and killing each other, we're ALL WRONG. That does not mean that the actions of men on one side of the conflict are any more heroic than those on the other.

I would also have to agree with a few people on here when they say that some of the comments posted really do show not just the age of the poster, but their mental capacity to understand the world. People seem to lack context, perspective and an open mind. NOTHING is as simple as it seems, and for every truth an individual holds dear, there are thousands of underlying intricacies. I'm struggling to put into words exactly how I feel, but the "United States of America is a terrorist organization pillaging the Middle-East in the name of corporate greed" and the "The U.S.A. is purely heroic and is fighting for freedom" crowds are both dead wrong. The truth lies somewhere in no-man's land, that space in-between the bullsh__ where reality takes place. It's funny that these people who are so privy to the truth play right into the hands of the media. Our country, hell, our world is currently pushing extremes. Either far left or far right, and aligning yourself with one side or the other based on what you THINK you know is about as dumb a move as anyone can make.

edit on 15-9-2010 by Shark VA84 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-9-2010 by Shark VA84 because: spelling like a small child

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
reply to post by nenothtu

Heroes are those who rise to the occasion under difficult circumstances when others fail or crumble. They don't have to be killed doing it, but often are. When they're not being heroic, under normal, mundane circumstances, they're about on a par with the rest of us, maybe slightly above, maybe not. That's why I say you never know who it's going to be until the grease gets hot.
Fair enough. Thats pretty much the point I was trying to make: merely wearing the uniform doesn't make anyone a hero. I have sympathy for those that get wounded & the families of those killed, but that doesn't make them heroes either; going further, I'll bet some of them got messed up because they were negligent or just plain stupid.
I once did something that many would consider heroic. I expect that I would have received some kind of community recognition or some such, but as it happens, I had some serious issues with the police at the time, so I had to make myself scarce before any emergency services turned up. You know what? I'm far from a hero.
I did it pretty much without thinking &, even tho it was potentially very dangerous, the consequences never even crossed my mind. There was no fear to overcome, I was doing it before my emotions could catch up. It was reckless & I promise you, if I had taken a moment to think, there's no 'kin way I'd have done it!

Bunken Drum, that's 3 agreements in only two days by my count! Don't go getting all crazy and taking me off your "foes" list over it. It's been said that a man is known by his foes, and I'm rather proud to be yours. Besides, I'd miss all the suspicious glances over the campfire at the drinking matches!

No, the mere act of putting on a uniform doesn't make one a hero. You'll find in uniform a cross section of the society that produces the uniform -wearers, the good, the bad, and the superlative. THEY are US. I'm always suspicious of a society that condemns it's own military, since it in effect indicting ITSELF.

Regarding your own "heroic moment", I don't know. You have the particulars of the event, and I don't, so I'll have to take your word for it. Still, that's the sort of stuff that heroes are made of. A blatant disregard for personal safety and comfort in order to promote the good of others. Does it have to be CONSCIOUS disregard? I don't think so, but perhaps you do. I believe that times like that, when one really hasn't the time to think about it, puts on display the core of who he IS. THAT is the man, what he does before applying all convention to his actions. Now, upon reflection, he may or may not choose to put himself at risk, but the core potential is there all the same. Not all people are like that.

You're also correct that stupidity and other things unrelated to heroism will get one killed on a battlefield. Just the mere act of dying is by no means in itself heroic, as that is something that comes to us all eventually. It's unavoidable, nothing heroic about it. Fear will do the same thing. Let me tell you another campfire story.

I once saw a man freeze in an ambush. It was his first time under fire, and he reacted poorly. He froze, standing straight up , rifle at port arms, eyes straight ahead, as if he were on a parade field instead of right in the middle of the grease. Another guy, on the run, assessed the situation on the fly, and clotheslined Mr. Frozen as he ran past on his way to diving under a vehicle for cover. Mr. Frozen fell like a log, stiff-straight, flat on his back in the mud, and stayed that way. To shorten a long story, we assaulted through the ambush, and ran off the bad guys. When we returned to the kill zone, there was Mr. Frozen, still flat on his back in the mud, rifle still at port arms, eyes staring straight up, same as he had been before, only horizontal now. After unfreezing him, none too gently, he went on to do his job on down the road of life - but now knowing what to expect.

Yessir, fear will get you killed same as stupidity or heroism. In all reality, in my own opinion, the way you die is irrelevant. It's the way you LIVED that counts in the end. Was the guy that clothesline Mr. Frozen a hero? Not in my book, not for that. Sure, he saved the guys bacon, but he didn't put himself at any greater risk to do it. We were all already in pretty warm straights, and he just did it on the fly, on his way to cover. Didn't put himself out none to accomplish it.

In your own circumstances, only you know if it was a "heroic" action or not. I'll say this, though. There are people who live and breathe today who are doing so solely because of the action of others. Those people may tend to view things differently than other folks. One whose life has been saved or otherwise affected for the better may tend to view the actions taken in a different light than most, including the actor. THEY may see it as heroic, and in my book that's far more valuable than all the accolades a public community recognition can heap upon you.

Something I read in the Qur'an may apply here. I don't recall the exact quote, so I'll have to paraphrase: "He who saves the life of one person, it is as if he had saved all of the world."

edit on 2010/9/15 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 04:36 PM
reply to post by Shark VA84
Yeah, I agree with much you've said also &, of course, nenothtu makes a lot of sense: thats why he's my respected foe. Specifically, the truth is never going to be found at the extremes of an argument. The older I get, the more I think of 'The Truth' as a nebulous thing. We can only start to see the shape of it after poking into all the surrounding issues, the agendas, the lies, the long accepted fallacies, etc. & what remains is something that we can at least base some logical thought on, since we know its not BS, even if it isn't dead right. Thats 1 of the best things about ATS: you dont have to do it all yourself; others will bring all sorts to the table.
That said, I wonder if you agree with my earlier point that calling all troops heroes debases the actions of those who actually did do something remarkable?
In the spirit of poking all round a topic to find some truth & forgetting the dualistic polarisation, I really do think that the nature of the conflict has a bearing on whether someone can be considered a hero. I agree that, when the killing starts, everyone involved is in the wrong, but there's wrong & then there's woefully heinous, right?
To me, a hero is somebody I aspire to emulate, so whilst I do grasp the concept of "never leave a man behind", I also realise that "he who fights & runs away lives to fight another day", so specifically, someone who gets wounded or killed attempting to recover a dead comrade is BLOODY STUPID in my book & certainly not someone I wish to copy. Also, whilst an individual may well be courageous (& I mean you for sticking to ROEs despite it costing the lives of mates) to me, a hero in the Iraq campaign is the soldier who challenges his/her orders & refused to go. Sure there aren't many, but some. Why? Because whatever you personally believe the conflict was about, we all know (or ought to) that the OS is/was complete bollocks.

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 04:58 PM
reply to post by Bunken Drum

Solid copy. This is one of the few subjects I struggle to put into words. I absolutely agree with the idea that a soldier (or airman or sailor or marine) is not a hero by default, nor is a dead soldier (or airman or sailor or marine). I guess it boils down to a completely subjective label. Most men who might be considered heroes by others rarely view themselves as such, from my experience anyway. I think calling all men heroes could certainly debase the extraordinary feats some men perform in combat, but it is all relative. I have never enjoyed being thanked for my service. Even though I know it is out of pure respect, I cringe when someone says thank you for it. I have a feeling this is how most "heroes" feel, regardless of their actions.

The engagement I was referring to was a unique situation. I was outranked and had no more responsibility for the (lack of a) fire mission than our enemy. It was one of the few occasions that an officer decided to grab his gear, hop on a transport and enter the fray with his unit. The call was his and I stand behind his actions. I can't say for sure that I would have done the same. As others have alluded to, there's really not a conscious thought that goes into these actions. To use nenothtu's expression, when the grease gets hot, it's pure instinct and reaction.

As far as the legitimacy of the U.S.' engagements in the Stan and Iraq, well, that's a whole 'nother can of worms brother. I have no qualms with admitting to the absolute bullsquat that was the excuse for invading Iraq. Te majority of my deployments were to Afghanistan, and while I never once got the feeling that I was "saving America from terrorism," I had no problems with hunting down the taliban and other various militants. The only "regret" I can say I have is when I ponder how many men my unit killed that were "freedom fighters." Guys who would have never picked up a rifle in anger, or blown anything up had we not invaded their country. Sure, these guys may have been dumb enough to fall in with a set of terrorist a-holes, but are their motivations to protect their homeland from what they view as an imperialistic invasion force any less respectable than ours? It's a real mind-screw, and that's why I tend to never fall on one side of the coin in these debates.
I rest a little easier when I reflect on the tactics and just plain horrid actions that the Taliban undertook while I was in-country. To see what they do to their own civilian population is disgusting. I will gladly fight any man to the death who is willing to inflict the kind of terror and violence on innocent men, women and children; that the Taliban do.

edit on 15-9-2010 by Shark VA84 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:12 PM
reply to post by nenothtu
By my count its 4: I agreed with you in the bible smoking thread also. Dont worry, that thin red line is kinda comforting, you know? So it'll be a drinking match? Best drink a pint of cream before that 1 mate: I chose my username aptly... Not that I'm claiming to be a 'real man' or anything. I'm currently eating quiche!
I'm not sure there's anything wrong with a society indicting itself. If I had my way, the UK would have been in the dock 25yrs ago & the sentence would have been a good long stint of community service.
Re: my own 'moment' - you judge...
I was in a house where a fight ruptured a gas pipe. There were naked flames. The stench of gas filled the room instantly. We all froze, looking at each other expecting the worst. Nothing happened. We ran out of the place. A woman stopped on the doorstep, freaking out. I grabbed her to pull her away. She screamed "No, no, [name] is in there!"
I was well up on adrenalin so I remember this bit perfectly clearly: my thought process went "hysterical woman cant do anything; kiddie inside; get the kiddie" which is what I did. It was only on the way out, when breathing was getting to be an issue, that it dawned on me what I was actually doing. Everything was in slo-mo, even tho I was sprinting. I imagined it'd be like a film, where the characters run & an explosion happens behind them, miraculously just knocking them over, except it'd be my & the kid's cinders blasted through the front door in a fireball. It didn't happen. I handed the kid to his mum & "un-assed" the place before the police could turn up. The fire brigade reckoned that the gas had filled the place so quickly that there was insufficient oxygen for combustion.
Brave or stupid? I dunno, but most people would say I ought to have been in jail already. The fact that I only served a bit of time thereafter is only testament to my being a pretty good criminal.
Who'd emulate me?

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:04 PM
reply to post by Bunken Drum

Drinking match? I seem to have chosen my words inappropriately. Of course it wouldn't be a match, perhaps more of a festival. In the matter of a match, I no doubt would have to defer to you. In any event, drinking cream would be out of the question, as the stuff I generally drink does violence to cream to the point that it resembles small-curd cottage cheese. I think we both know that there are sometimes circumstances attendant upon drinking bouts which would render that event annoyingly problematic! No, I perhaps won't be able to engage in a match, but I'd at least try to keep up, perhaps to my own detriment.

Self-indictment and self-searching are not necessarily bad things per se, but the way in which they are done is all-important. I prefer the constructive variety, and inflaming an entire segment of the population charged with the defense of the rest doesn't seem to fit that criteria.

Now, regarding your own moment, I personally think the salient features are that you a) went out of your way to go back IN, b) in order to rescue a child, C) in the stead of a mother who was in no shape herself to accomplish the task. We'll never know, but it's highly probable that under the circumstance you describe, you may well have saved TWO lives rather than one. The initial altercation that caused the crisis to begin with is irrelevant to your actions IN the crisis, as is the fact that you skittered out for greener pastures AFTER the crisis. All that matters to my mind is your actions IN the crisis, and the fact that it was more or less a gut reaction, rather than an extensively reasoned one. Would I call it heroic? Yes. Would you? obviously not. However there are two people alive today who might. Then again, they might throw rotten tomatoes and cabbages at you every time they see you. That in no way lessens the impact you made in that singular instant.

That would just make them ungrateful, not impinge on your own status. I suspect the tossing of veggies may not be the case, however.

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 12:52 AM
I dont know. Seems to me that your "shades of grey" messages imply that the US's actions are neither far right, nor far left, imperial, or altruistic, but somewhere in the middle. I say bullocks. The US is so far right that they consider the center leftist, and their policy and opinions generally fall very far to the right of most western european nations. Further more, many of our founding fathers would be considered extremely liberal by todays standards. Using the "shades of grey" Is in my opinion, just trying to pass off what goes on as reasonable corruption in a well to do environment. I dont think this is the case, and regardless of what you think, im sure you must recognize the possibility that im right. The problem with our strictly capitalist and material society is that every thing is reduced to a dollar value, and that includes "collateral damage", "reasonable pollution", and puts a dollar price on human life and values. I could be wrong, but it seems to me that Profit is the single largest driving force for pain and human misery today.

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 05:59 PM
reply to post by pexx421

No, my shades of gray message is that too many people are trying to categorize EVERYTHING, and place all in one of two baskets or the other to organize it in their own minds. Life is not so simple. There are as many reasons for actions as there are people performing those actions, and not all can be so conveniently categorized with labels like "right", "left", "black", "white", "capitalist", "communist", "selfish" "altruistic", etc. The very attempt produces a false dichotomy that doesn't even approximate the view from the ground.

The US itself is not "far right", although it may be just right of center - but I've not seen much evidence of that lately. Still, I'm willing to admit the possibility. Myself, well, I AM "far right", almost far enough to wrap around to the left. I'm just to the right of Atilla the Hun politically. Even at that, I'll take a beat down to defend your right to be wherever you place yourself on that spectrum, and speak openly about it, as I would on behalf of myself.

That's the thing. Folks here have been trying to force US actions into a monolithic mold, as if it's all one big block, and then impute those actions all the way down through the ranks to the lowest private soldier, making it ALL one big block of granite, all of one mind, an entire nation of automatons.

It's ALL "corporations", which are ALL "evil" running ALL of the government, dictating ALL of our moves. The goal of US foreign policy is nothing other than "imperialism", or else it's nothing other than "oil", or "gold", or some other resource that the poster of the moment thinks is in short supply, or has some peculiar "value". Life is not so simple, and if it were, then most all of us would be unnecessary, superfluous.

The US is not a perfectly honed team of oxen, pulling together towards the same result. It's more like a maddened herd, trending in a general direction, which might end at a cliff if we're not careful to separate things out properly.

The reviled soldiers are at the bottom of that particular herd, and they appear to be getting trampled pretty good by the rest of the herd. Doesn't matter what they do, the herd is going to stomp away - and it's the herd that sends them out in the first place.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that Profit is the single largest driving force for pain and human misery today.

I actually agree with that, although I would have said "greed" rather than "profit". Profit implies a monetary goal, whereas greed is not limited to simple filthy lucre. I know that the bible says "the love of money is the root of all evil", but I have to ask myself, why would anyone WANT all that money? The only answer I have come up with so far is POWER. They want power, and money is the means the choose to achieve that.

I've run into some thoroughly unsavory rich folks in my day, who had more money than they could ever spend, and yet they had not enough of "something". That something was power. They wanted power, over other people, and money was just their chosen means to that end - and they never, ever got enough. Further, they lie awake at night, worrying about who would be next to try to take their money - and their power. Conversely, I've met filthy rich folks who cared nary a whit for the money - gave it away practically, and slept well I presume. At least they never had that furtive look in their eyes.

At the other end, I've been with dirt poor folks who would share every bit of what little they had with even a stranger, if they thought he was in need or even slight discomfort, and I've run across miserable wretches that would cut your throat for a nickel towards their next... whatever it was they wanted next. It takes all kinds, but I've noticed that the baser sort, both high and low, were after power of one sort or another.

Just as it takes all kinds to make a nation, sometimes all pulling in opposing directions with their own pursuits, so also goes a military, or a government, garnered from within that nation. Corporation A may be in it solely for the buck, whatever comes, corporation B may be in it to foment trouble and profit thereby, and corporation C may be trying to thwart both A and B in some manner, or merely cut their throats in a competitive spirit. Nothing personal, just business - and sometimes power.

Sometimes to block power.

What I'm getting at is that there are nearly as many different reasons for an action as their are actors. It's unfair, in my opinion, to pick the folks at the bottom of the totem pole and trash them, simply because one thinks that those at the top of the heap, or who one THINKS is at the top of the heap, may have ulterior motives. Those folks at the bottom are likely pursuing their own ideals, and there again, there are as many different directions there as there are people there, and those reasons may not mesh as well as one thinks with an overall picture constructed in black and white.

Like I said, life is seldom so easily categorized.

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6   >>

log in