Diogenes the Cynic disprespects the military

[amoeba]

The military should only be used when not using it would result in more misery and suffering than using it.

interesting point.

1. how about the ridicuous annual budget for U.S. arms? do they really need so many weapons? All this while the economy goes into recession, poverty increases, schools and education decline, and all for what?** United States military funding is bleeding its own country dry, and making other countries suffer.

2. we don’t need weapons for defence or attack. there is no identifiable enemy. we have a case called ‘the enemy within’; the pandemonium and hysteria is reaching epidemic proportions. the only reason there is a threat is due to greedy corporate fucks, who decide to sell poor countries arms, then blow the shit out of them later, because ‘we live in a dangerous world’, all thanks to the bush legacy.

3. U.S. citizens and military alike love, lets repeat this for clarity, love weapons. The ‘star wars’ programme will be a reality due to a few little boys in suits. You have to repeat this a few times before it sinks in. Have a joint, maybe a beer or a trip, and let the words roll off your tongue: staar waars!. You want to drop nukes? You want to make Mutually assured destruction meaningless? I know, lets dumb down U.S. citizens, show them ‘who the enemy is’ on cable tv, and we’ll have all the justification and support we want. I’m sorry, you’re not dropping bombs on my head.

4. cowboys in space. yeeehaw! (best not encourage them)

Many people put their lives on the line to try to preserve a comfortable standard of living for you and I

happy with pizza and cable, are we?

[Shodan]

@amoeba

interesting point.

1. how about the ridicuous annual budget for U.S. arms? do they really need so many weapons? All this while the economy goes into recession, poverty increases, schools and education decline, and all for what?** United States military funding is bleeding its own country dry, and making other countries suffer.

Well, the economy is not in recession, and most education funding in the US is at the state and local level, so your point that defense spending is bankrupting the country is ridiculous on its face.

@amoeba

2. we don’t need weapons for defence or attack. there is no identifiable enemy.

Welcome to our planet. Land and be friendly.

That having been said, are you farking insane? Have you never heard of North Korea, the Taliban, Iraq circa 1991? Any of these ring a bell?

@amoeba

we have a case called ‘the enemy within’; the pandemonium and hysteria is reaching epidemic proportions. the only reason there is a threat is due to greedy corporate fucks, who decide to sell poor countries arms, then blow the shit out of them later, because ‘we live in a dangerous world’, all thanks to the bush legacy.

Oh thank God. I thought it was going to be the Illuminati who were to blame.

Incidentally, please provide cites for any single claim contained above. I’d be particularly interested in any indication that pandemonium or hysteria is at epidemic levels anywhere besides your house.

@amoeba

3. U.S. citizens and military alike love, lets repeat this for clarity, love weapons. The ‘star wars’ programme will be a reality due to a few little boys in suits. You have to repeat this a few times before it sinks in. Have a joint, maybe a beer or a trip, and let the words roll off your tongue: staar waars!. You want to drop nukes? You want to make Mutually assured destruction meaningless? I know, lets dumb down U.S. citizens, show them ‘who the enemy is’ on cable tv, and we’ll have all the justification and support we want. I’m sorry, you’re not dropping bombs on my head.

4. cowboys in space. yeeehaw! (best not encourage them)

Not only has the Spirit rover landed, it seems to have brought back one of the natives, and he/she/it/they are posting on the SDMB.

For the benefit of those who the voices don’t talk to, could you explain what the hell you are failing to say above?

And I seriously doubt if your advice on getting wasted is going to help any. I could be dead drunk, stoned out of my gourd, running a fever of 106, and bleeding internally, and your post would still come across as a heap of walrus droppings.

Have fun in detox.

Regards,
Shodan

[mhendo]

@Shodan

Have you never heard of North Korea, the Taliban, Iraq circa 1991?

Can we take this as a tacit admission that Iraq circa 2003 was not a threat, and that the US had no business going in?

If so, it’s nice of you to recognize the truth, finally.

[amoeba]

yes. you’re right it was an awful post, and I’m glad you brought me to my senses.

and the detox thing is going quite well BtW

[Spavined_Gelding]

You will forgive my late entry into this unseemly shoving match, but I have spent the last day wrestling with my antiquated computer which insists that there is a slight problem with the database every time I try to open up the SDMBs. It has been temporarily beaten into submission–for just how long remains to be seen.

Our cynical friend from the vast frozen North has told the truth about the purpose and function of armed forces. He may not have chosen the most diplomatic language to express that universal truth, but truth none-the-less. Any one who has been a soldier (or a sailor, or an aircrew, or Coast Guard or, God help us all, a Marine) knows that while individuals in a force might have jobs that involve repairing trucks, or filling out forms, or counting footlockers, or dispensing medicine, or cleaning teeth, or trying courts-martial, or building roads, or any number of other things, the fundamental mission of the combat arms of each and every military organization is to destroy lives and property in as efficient a manner as possible. To think otherwise is to confuse soldiers and all those others with policemen and firemen and social workers and sanitary workers.

Now, the wracking of death and destruction might well be done for a good and noble and admirable cause or it might not. Either way it is still death and destruction and wracking it is the basic and inescapable function of an armed force. Soldiers (etc.) seldom if ever have the privilege of deciding when they get to exercise their special skill or where. In this country the representatives of the people, the suits you and I selected for the purpose, get to make that decision. Based on my acquittance with my Congressional Representative that is not a reassuring thought.

No one who has not enjoyed the pleasure of marching in platoon mass through heat, cold, rain and snow to a bayonet drill while screaming Kill! Kill! Kill! would ever think otherwise. No one who has been in a combat theater (whether shot at or not) would ever think otherwise. Any one who has read anything beside Sunday School flyers and Nancy Drew mysteries would ever think otherwise.

That is not to say that being a soldier (etc.) is not a noble, admirable and necessary thing. It is. Many people draw on their service in the armed forces as a matter of personal pride–pride that they did their duty when called on or with out the need to be called–pride that they did, or are doing, a lousy and demanding job and are doing it or did do it well. There are people on these Boards and people you see on the streets ever day who brace when the flag passes and have a little lump because it recalls friends who died following that flag and who went to their grave under it.

As one of those old guys with a lump in their throat, let me say that I took no offense at Mr. the Cynic’s observation.

Diogenes, there is a saying: the man who tells the truth better have one foot in the stirrup.

What does offend me, however, is the use of the word disrespect as a verb. It is not a verb, God damn it! The word is ‘disparage." It is a good word. If you use it people might not think you are a fool. :rolleyes:

[mhendo]

@Spavined Gelding

You will forgive my late entry into this unseemly shoving match, but I have spent the last day wrestling with my antiquated computer which insists that there is a slight problem with the database every time I try to open up the SDMBs. It has been temporarily beaten into submission–for just how long remains to be seen.

It’s not your computer, it’s related to the work they’ve been doing on updating the software at SDMB.

[fushj00mang]

UnwrittenNocturne,

Lets pick your little reply apart, sentence by sentence, shall we?

You might very well respond as you say but one hell of a lot of people will not.

Well, aparently one Private First Class in Tikrit is willing to send his Colonel to the brig for 5 to 10 for abusing a POW. Cite at http://utah.indymedia.org/news/2003/11/6860.php . So…yea, there most likely will be some nutjob in the Army. When you have some 7 million men and women in uniform, statistics will say that somebody will be mentally unstable. But at the same time, there is going to be a LOT of somebodys around them who won’t put up with that shit.

People who revel in brutality are often attracted to the military precisely because it gives them the chance to be violent.

Bullies? Mavericks? Mad men? You are aware that the Department of Defence screens against these type of people, right? We DO NOT want the William Calley’s of the world. We do NOT want the Allen West’s of the world. We look for people who can be controlled, directed, instructed. We want the people who can make judgement calls which don’t end up on the front page. We want people who are compassionate enough to, after coming under fire from hostiles, treat and heal the wounded of that same enemy.

Why don’t we attract and embrace the most vicious, brutal human beings in America? Because they, like you, are too fucking stupid. They’re inefficient, ineffective, and bound to earn themselves an Enemy Marksmanship Badge (more commonly known as a Purple Heart.) Bullies are too easily bored with their actions. Mavericks cause bad morale by being insubordinate. Crazies can’t be controlled. These folks, like you, are useless to the Armed Forces. Like Heinlein said, “War is not violence, pure and simple. War is controlled violence…”

Look around some time, check out some history.

You know, I love that. You know it can’t be done. When was the last time you saw a history text which showed individuals like PFC RD Mang, my younger brother (who is stationed in Korea right now,) who helps every weekend teaching Korean kids english? What about my father, retired Sergeant Major RF Mang, who in Vietnam earned three Army Commendation Medals for helping treat ill Vietnamese civilians when he wasn’t in the field, helping save his wounded buddies?

You see, history is much like pop journalism. If it isn’t big, juicy, heroic or demonic, it isn’t written down. You don’t read that Colonel So-and-So helped set up an orphanage in Trashcanistan. You hear that Colonel So-and-So’s brigade either repulsed an armored attack or killed a bunch of civilians. You don’t read about Captain Anonymous, flying helocopters and ferrying equiptment to foreward positions. You read about how he and his crew chief provided close air support to a platoon of beleagured Marines who are about to be overrun or you read about how he and his crew chief rocketed a hospital. History is MY subject, and I can see this shortfall. So, when was the last time you took part in history? I’m doing it right now. My Pa did it thirty plus years ago. We’ll never be in a history book, or a movie. Our dissident comrades in arms like Reeder and DtC won’t either. Doesn’t mean we’re not making it. Come back and tell me about military history and atrocities when you’ve seen one. I hope you’re from Iran or Cambodia, because in THIS man’s Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, we don’t tolerate that shit. Come back and tell me about military history when you’ve earned a campaign ribbon (I’ve got two, we’ll swap stories.)

[Evil_Captor]

@Shodan

I told you not to talk nonsense.

Why didn’t we use WMD in Iraq and Afghanistan? If the purpose of the army is to do as much damage as possible, why didn’t we shoot everyone in sight, burn down their villages, and rape their cattle?

Because their villages are made of mud buildings that don’t burn so well and the cattle might give us mad cow disease?

[Reeder]

@Shodan

I told you not to talk nonsense.

Why didn’t we use WMD in Iraq and Afghanistan? If the purpose of the army is to do as much damage as possible, why didn’t we shoot everyone in sight, burn down their villages, and rape their cattle?

As for the WMD in Afghanistan. The only target is the one we wanted to control. In Iraq…it’s very hard to pump oil out of a radioactive mess. Please show me where I said the only reason for an army to exist is to create total carnage. But to deny that an army does it is a lie. Wait…you are a pubbie aren’t you?

Nuff said.

[Ogre]

Hoo boy. Yes, armies, are in general, machines of highly controlled destruction. Only the most dimwitted pollyanna could possibly believe otherwise.

On the other hand, this:

But to say Armies aren’t for doing the most damage they can is a specious statement at best.

…is alarmingly retarded. If the above statement were the truth, WMD or no, Baghdad would not exist. Period. There was enough conventional firepower in Iraq to reduce Baghdad to finely ground rubble. If we were there to “do the most damage” we could, the B-52’s would have utterly depopulated the region while the tankers stood back and had cigars, then they would have rolled through the rubble, Terminator-style, eliminating anything unlucky enough to be left in their path, and there’s not a goddamned thing anyone in or out of the region could have done about it except complain.

It’s called self-control, whether you mean individual ethical self-control or the in the wider sense, control over one’s own forces through policy, military justice, etc.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

If the POTUS had either ethics or self-control he wouldn’t have invaded Iraq at all. Saying that Bush exercised self-control by not nuking Iraq is like saying a wife beater shows a sense of ethics and control by not using a closed fist.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I can’t believe I just extended my own pit thread to a second page. :smack:

[Ogre]

If the POTUS had either ethics or self-control he wouldn’t have invaded Iraq at all.

The above is, to put it mildly, extremely debatable. I hardly need to tell you this, since your stance is well-known. Suffice to say, I disagree. I think it was high fucking time Iraq was invaded, but this in turn should come as no surprise to you.

I am a bit upset, though, that he felt he had to lie about it. Especially when he had perfectly good reasons to invade without “weapons of mass destruction” ever passing his lips.

Thus the reasons, among others (decidedly Fascistic domestic policy, slipping many of the provisions of Patriot Act II through Congress while Saddam was captured, John Fucking Ashcroft, etc.) that I will not be voting for Bush.

But Iraq, IMO, was utterly justified.

[IWLN]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I can’t believe I just extended my own pit thread to a second page. :smack:

This I can agree with.

[Morgs]

I disagree that it is the role of the military apparatus to kill or cause harm. These things are incidental. Their ‘role’ is the further the imperial/political ends of the government of the time.

I believe the real problem is the very fact that the killing/terror is incidental. Insofar as ‘people’ include both enemy combatants and civilians, the killing of enemy troops is expected and is often necessary to the achievement of an objective. On the other hand, collateral damage continues to be regarded as an unfortunate consequence of military operations.

Take the urban warfare in Iraq - logically, conducting a war in populated areas would cause greater civilian deaths than if the war took place, say, in the middle of a desert. Anyway, I’m aware that those leaflets were dropped, with information about how to avoid being shot/maimed/exploded/burned to death etc. Ingenious, these, in that they (apparently) completely absolved the US army of any responsibility. I am, of course, not claiming that the troops were covering their arses and then setting out to massacre the Iraqis; it’s just that once these leaflets were in place, any collateral damage that did occur could be blamed on the fact that the Iraqis had failed to follow the instructions they were given. This is what I mean when I say that the incidental death of civilians isn’t given enough weighting: it’s only ever regarded in the dimension of potential political damage to the invading forces.

While a given military would not set out specifically to murder civilians or non-combatants, any deaths seem to be regarded with the attitude of 'well, if they live, cool… if not, what can ya do?'Basically, to what Diogenes was quoted as saying, I think the events are the reverse. The army exists to satisfy political ends, and will cause death to achieve them. Civilian death might not be caused deliberately, but it doesn’t draw the level of concern I think it should.

Oh, and how the hell did we get to talking about America in Iraq – and how did we forget the the term ‘people’ covers ‘enemy soldiers’? Hmmm.
Oh, and I’m sorry for making this thread longer, Mister Cynic. My bad etc.

[JThunder]

@Reeder

As a veteran of Viet Nam let me say a few words.

The great majority of troops in a combat situation don’t fight for me, they don’t fight for you,they don’t even in reality fight for their country. The fight for themselves, they fight for their buddies. They kill or don’t kill for purely selfish reasons.If killing saves their asses they kill. And there is nothing wrong with that.

That is absolutely irrelevant, Reeder. We are talking about the military’s purpose for existing. We are not talking about the motivations of individual soldiers.

Some troops may fight out of love for God and country, and a genuine desire to protect the innocent. Others may fight because they don’t know what else to do with their lives. And others may just enjoy violence for the heck of it. All of that is irrelevant to the subject at hand, since it has no bearing on the purpose behind the military itself.

But to say Armies aren’t for doing the most damage they can is a specious statement at best.

You served in Viet Nam, you say? I think your statement demonstrates that not everyone who fires a gun has a clear understanding of why they are doing so.

[Shodan]

@mhendo

Can we take this as a tacit admission that Iraq circa 2003 was not a threat, and that the US had no business going in?

If so, it’s nice of you to recognize the truth, finally.

Well, I didn’t mention Libya or al-Queda either, but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t a threat.

amoeba’s idea was that the US has no enemies. I was trying to choose examples that we could agree were enemies sufficient to justify use of the military even for those with the Bush-bashing obsession.

It would seem that some have no room in their heads for more than one thought in a thread. Oh well.

Regards,
Shodan

[amoeba]

amoeba’s idea was that the US has no enemies

was not. despite my lack of clarity, please refrain from future misrepresentation. considering the sound bashing you inflicted on my sorry ass (which was farking hilarious btw) you now have less justification for said wupping. I’ll be more careful, if you will.

MY idea was that the U.S. has a habit of creating enemies, and likes trying out new weapons.

[IWLN]

Back on topic. This is supposed to be a pitting. Diogenes, you suck at being a good subject for a pitting. Bad DtC, bad! Apologize at once for not inspiring us more!

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@IWLN

Back on topic. This is supposed to be a pitting. Diogenes, you suck at being a good subject for a pitting. Bad DtC, bad! Apologize at once for not inspiring us more!

Ok, I’ll try…I’m not sure how this will go but I’ll give it a shot.
[Ahem] Fuck puppies! Those furry little bastards, I hate 'em. Put 'em all down!

Let the flaming begin