Yeah, its hard to layoff when someone answers you back. I used to just lurk until i got sucked in...doh! Well I did say 'relative to the other powers,' so that would include most of the major powers that were THE dominant power in their time such as England, Spain, Rome, and Greece under Alexander. While we do act in our national interest, as does every other nation, we have not sought to conquer and occupy the rest of the known world ala England/Spain/Rome/Greece. We have stepped into the breech on many occasions when there was no other actor capable of acting despite our isolationist beginnings. If you were to compare the US to the only other superpower of its time, the USSR, benevolence is certainly not a 'r****ded' characterization. Unfortunately, the US is caught in a catch-22. If we don't act (rwanda/bosnia) then we are terrible because we have a moral obligation to use our power for the betterment of all humanity. If we DO act (bosnia/afghanistan) then we are imperialist dogs/crazy testosterone filled cowboys looking for a shoot 'em up. I reject that. That doesn't mean 100% of our actions are 'right,' only exactly what i've said: Take the balance of the US actions and their effects and I feel no hesitation calling Pax Americana benevolent. Who said he was trained? The bottom line is that allies unwilling to act aren't worth spit. And please specify what you mean by 'again?' I'm no small chicken myself, thank you. I'm 6-2/220 and I've actually had plenty of debates in pubs with English rugby types about this very topic (i'm sure they're much different than NZ rugby types). To their chagrin they usually end up trying to co-opt our Superpower status by saying 'well, if it weren't for us there'd be no America, mate.' And machismo is really a latin concept. Saying the US is the dominant world power and that we can act without the support of allies if necessary, has nothing to do with machismo. One final note: I read a lot of anti-American sentiment in the European press, but in my travels here, especially since Sept 11th, there has been one consistent theme in the feedback I personally have gotten from Europeans - 'You are the Superpower. You are the country capable of taking this on. We can't agree on anything, and that's why we don't have the resolve to act. Now it time for you to use your power.' All hail Pax Americana
glynch, How about you quit comparing this to Vietnam? It's over and done with and the circumstances underlying this are not the same. And as far as you avoiding the draft, I think it's sick and cowardly. I don't care what the cause is and whether or not you believe in it. You live in America. We have more rights and freedoms than anyone in the world. And when your country calls for your assistance in return, you bail. You want the privilages but don't want to pay the price. I would be the first in line to help in any way in any wartime effort. Hell, I'd go combat if they would let me. Although I shouldn't say this because you'll think I am saying it's the same thing. But I hate people b!tching about jury duty. It's one simple thing to do for our rights. I know that fighting in a war is not simple at all, but hundreds of thousands of men died in the Revolution and Civil War so your ass could bail on America!?! I just lost any shred of respect I had for you. And dimsie, go crawl back in the hole you came out of. You'll complain till you're blue in the face but you have no other solution. None of you do. America is doing the only thing it can. We're powerful and wise enough to go into this and win. Why shouldn't we? Again, this isn't Vietnam. And as far as World War II goes, we DID save their asses. Germany would have won if we had not intervened. I NEVER said the other countries were not fighting until we came in, as you so cleverly asserted that I did. If we had not stepped in, all the Allies who died in battle would have died for nothing. Hitler would have been in charge and the world would have gone to hell. And my grandfather fought in the war too. In fact, he was in Pearl Harbor around that time. So I resent the fact that while my grandfather helped save the Western World, you don't even have the decency to say thank you. Your precious Elvis (gag me) was right. You should've stayed out of this. You have nothing to say and you don't have any of the facts. Until you have some knowledge on the subject and a better solution, just save yourself the trouble. GO ARMY!
Just a quick question: Princess said treeman was IN the army, as in currently. Tree, how in the hell are you posting so much if you are in the army??? Aren't there regulations?
Ha, Mrs. JB. Princess, what if you believed that your religion didn't allow for you to join the military, you still think that the government should be able to force you to?
Mrs. JB, I don't think you understood that I was referring to the draft (all in all, we're technically not in war and there has been little talk of the draft and hopefully, we won't need one). Glynch dodged the draft and I wouldn't. That was my point. If they instate a draft, I would do anything I could to help my country. I live here and abide by the rules and enjoy my freedoms. If the country needs me, I'm there. RM95, that question does not pertain to me and I have never really thought about it. I don't know many religions in depth so I don't know of any that would. There's separation of church and state, which I agree with and abide by. I guess it would depend. If the religion explicitlly states that, perhaps it's okay. If it's some ass who's interpreting his religion to say that just so he can weasel his way out of the draft, I don't agree with it. Like I said though, I don't know any religion that forbids it. My loyalty lies with my state.
What if one of the rules was that every third woman had to shave their head bald and become a lesbian? Would you still abide by it if you happened to be selected?
I think a lot of religions are ambivalent on the issue. There are many pacifists who reject any form of violence, however, And, imo, making conscienscious objectors do "support work" isn't really addressing the issue. It's still indirectly contributing to violence. I actually am not a pacifist. But if everyone were, the world would be a better place. It's a beautiful vision... and it might not be realistic... or we might not simply be ready for it. We're definitely less brutal than were were 800 years ago. Maybe in another 800, war won't exist. I can hope... Incidentally, you seem to imply that the separation of church and state is a set issue. While it sounds like I'd agree with your interpretation, many would not .
<b>glynch </b> Did Clinton and NATO do the right thing in the Balkans to end the human suffering? Mango
The issue at hand is patently clear: Saddam Hussein has unjustly taken over the drum major position in the Middle East and needs to be "taken out." Either the "Euros" get on board or we take them out, too! Then we'll "save their asses" all over again! And don't ever, ever disagree with me because I served in the Army, etc. Go Montrose Militia!
That Montrose militia thing might not be a bad idea. Can you imagine an army of bald, pissed off lesbians marching into the Middle East in their plaid flannel shirts screaming, "Allright, who the HELL says I can't say what I want damnit!!!" That would scare them ****less!
I can't speak to your personal experience, but I can say I've encountered veterans who would take exception to you acting as if this is a consensus. I can speak from my personal experience that I've known many veterans (including my father - two tours and another year in Laos - so hardly peripheral) who would disagree with your decision to be a conscientious objector. And its also a little self flattering to assume any opposition to 'conscientious objectors' view the world simplistically. Not sure the relevance??? Except I will say that the Vietnamese conflict did not have implications that included WMD, which certainly do have massive ramifications for US security. And we've certainly now seen that there are those who would bring the war to our shores, unlike the Vietnamese. Hardly. We got defeated by the groups of which you were a part here in the US. The fact is that there was not an engagement over platoon size in over the decade the US was in Vietnam that we didn't win on the ground. Even the Vietnamese admit they thought of pursuing peace on several occasions but held out because of the dissent in the US, and the possibilities it held for an eventual US withdrawl.
dimsie: Wassa matter, you can dish it, but can't take it? You hurl personal insults at me for no reason at all, and then I jokingly throw them back... Gee what an ******* I must be to insult a poor wittle wady... When did Gore and Leiberman switch parties? Both are 100% behind going after Iraq - Leiberman is actually leading the charge in the Senate. Use facts, not perceptions, when arguing, missy. Then what, precisely, do you propose? You either send diplomats (and get absolutely nothing accomplished), do nothing at all (and get nothing accomplished), or you start moving the tanks. Maybe if the Euros actually had a viable solution in mind we wouldn't have to act unilaterally? They have no solution. We do. It's not the ideal solution, but it is apparently the only one that will work. What is it with you and personal insults? You have yet to actually challenge the issue here - that it has to be done, and since no one else is willing to do it, we will. You do not address the issue of WMD, and you totally ignore the terrorism issue. You don't bother to comment on this mixture likely hitting US or Eoropean cities, which is the whole point for any such preventative campaign. All you can do is throw insults. You obviously haven't even read any of my previous posts; you'd know that I'm anything but some bible-thumping militiaman if you had. But I understand - reality does not interest the principled. You're a joke. Come back when you actually feel like debating the issue at hand. BGM: You're a real funny guy, too. Closest thing to an intelligent post on this subject you've made yet. glynch: There you go again with the Vietnam comparisons. It just won't work, glynch. In Vietnam, our interests were not truly threatened. In this war, our civilians, let alone our interests, are threatened. Why does it not surprise me that you're a draft dodger? Jeff: I don't ship for Basic until April. Come April, treeman go bye-bye for 5 months, at least. I'm sure everyone will breathe a big sigh of relief... Elvis Costello: Almost as witty as your girl. Thanks for the meaningful debate.
An old man was sitting on a bench at the mall. A young man walked up and sat down. He had spiked hair in all different colors: green, red, orange, blue, yellow. The old man just stared. Every time the young man looked, the old man was staring. The young man finally said sarcastically, "What's the matter old timer, never done anything wild in your life?" Without batting an eye, the old man replied, "Got drunk once and had sex with a parrot. I was just wondering if you were my son. I don't know why I posted this...
haven- glad we seem to agree on something. However, saying we're less violent than we were 800 years ago is not necessarily. In the so called "Middle East," Musilims and Arabs were probably just as, if not more, peaceful than they are today. As I have said before, the Islam religion and government was the first to allow for religious toleration in their communities. There were no wars between Jews, Christians and Muslims. They lived together peacefully. Violence occured sometimes, but most of that came with the Europeans. So I don't know that I would say that we're less barbaric. Maybe we just refined our methods some. I think human nature inclines man to be inherently evil or bad in some way (for the most part). Any readins of Hobbes, Locke, Machiavelli should tell us that much. Elvis- I'm not saying anyone can't disagree with treeman because he's serving. I think he's actaully involved in all of this and that takes some precedent. And no one has had anything of relevence to say. If none of you want military action taken, what is the alternative? Like he and I have both said, we either go in and get rid of him, send in diplomats and waste more time, or do nothing and well, do nothing. I think we should have takedn Saddam out a long time ago. There is a reason we have a military. RM95-That example is a little silly and I do not see how it could pertain to government at all. But if for whatever reason that's what was mandated, I would do it. Just like if I moved to Saudi, I would wear the traditional dress like everyone else. I think the Montrose Lesbian Militia sounds like a great idea. I'm sure most guys would agree that when you piss off a woman there's hell to be paid!
Everyone wants an alternate option to war or there can be no debate. I, myself, want to function as a member of the global community instead of apart from it and I prefer that we wage peace rather than war. Just like the cycle of violence perpetuated in Israel and Palestine, I personally believe that cycle will continue until someone (maybe the most powerful nation on the planet) decides to call it a day. At some point, someone is going to have to be big enough to say, "Enough violence. We choose not to fight." That is my belief and I don't find it any less valid than anyone else's. Frankly, I resent the implication that you are either a fighter or a coward. And I also resent the implication that it is somehow easier to choose not to fight. Jesus, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Ghandi were all persecuted (two were actually killed) for their beliefs which included a stance in favor of non-violence. When Jesus' right-hand disciple cut the ear off of a Roman centurion, did Jesus say, "Yeah, kick his ass!" No, he stopped Peter and healed the soldier even though they were hauling him off to be crucified. Tell that non-violence is easier stuff to the Vietnamese monks who set themselves on fire in protest during the Vietnam War or the followers of Ghandi who marched one after the other to a beating at the hands of the British occupying their country. MLK was murdered because he had the nerve to speak out against racism and violence. If anyone wants to argue that war is justified, that's fine. You have a right to argue your opinion. But, I'm really tired of the implication that you either fight or you are afraid. It takes courage to assert your beliefs whatever they may be.
Princess: Why? I honestly am asking here. I don't mean this sarcastically at all. Isn't there a point at which you must draw your own moral conclusions and, if they are contrary to what the government tells you, don't you have an obligation to those moral standards to, at the very least, find another way if not outright speak out against what you may consider an injustice or oppressive way of living? I just wonder why it is you are so willing to accept the way things are without any debate on the matter. We hear so often people wanting us to practice morality yet we are often unwilling to allow our morality to supercede what our leaders tell us. Just wondering.
Not true. WWII would've ended differently, but Hitler wouldn't have been alive to see it. Considering the ease with which the Soviet Armed Forces crushed the Wermacht when they advanced across Eastern Europe in the latter stages of the war, I don't see any reason to believe that the Third Reich would've survived WWII intact, American entry into combat or not. Of course, you could say that the American entry kept the vast majority of Europe from falling under the rule of the Soviet Union, and you would be correct. But to say we "saved their asses", and had we not intervened Germany would've won is not correct. That is all.
