No, illogical one, you stated above that the only war you agreed that should have been fought was World War Two. So, you see, the logical conclusion follows, if your assertion is true, that those other wars (such as the one which created this nation) were not just and righteous, and thus immoral. That would make those of us who have served in combat in those other wars immoral by your so called standards.
You also stated that the military trains people not to think. So the logical conclusion follows, if your assertion is true, that those of us in the military do not think. I submit it is you who has failed to practice that fine art (thinking).
Oh, and good luck on finding a credible source for your ridiculous assumption that the United States government allowed a mass murder in Hawaii on December 7th, 1941. You may have read that statement in one of those publications you mentioned above; however, I’ll bet dollars to doughnuts that it was in an interview with an unreliable source.
And I’m not claiming that you’ve said what you didn’t say–I quoted you.
Nice of you to admit that you spout bullshit. How about retracting it?
Oh, you still haven’t answered the question–what do you ask those veterans of World War Two before you deem they’re worthy of your thanks and respect? What answer must they give to you? QUIT EVADING THE QUESTION!
Actually, Stoidella; I’ll be happy to make this easier for you. Just answer this question:
What will your response be if the WWII veteran answered, “I herded American citizens who were not charged with any crime into a prison camp without trial and guarded them for the duration?”
As I said elsewhere on this board, that “moral highground” was lost when that event happened.
Whoops . . . for whatever reason, I read that as " . . .that those who have not been through boot camp can never know." Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy on my part.
Ya know, if you wanna attack me on unassailable fact, fine.
You wanna attack my opinions for what they are, great.
You wanna bust me for things I’ve actually said, go for it.
You wanna pick apart my posts, sentence by sentence? Fab - just make sure you keep them in context.
But it’s incredibly tiresome to have a discussion/debate/argument with someone who invents things to argue with. Especially since it is so easy to go back and see exactly what I said, and what the context was.
So allow me to lead you back to reality…
bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Oh, I’m so sorry, Monty! But with assertions like that you won’t be going on to our bonus round!
Here’s the real answer:
Note the initial generalization, followed by the word “particularly”, not “exclusively”, not “singularly”, not “only”. It means only what it plainly seems to mean: “especially”.
Note also the the words: “the definition of”, which again, does not mean “the only definition of” the only instance of" “the single occurance” or anything of the kind. It is merely held up as a particularly (see definition above) good example.
These are the kinds of details that can trip you up and keep you from winning the grand prize! Let’s see how you did on the next question:
bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Oh no! Too bad… but as you can see, if your starting assertion is false, the conclusions which follow will ALSO be false! Double whammy! That’s really gonna hurt in the final scoring!
Let’s move on:
Ding Ding Ding! Nice recovery, Monty! However, we can only give you half points on this one, since it is a matter of some interpretation. Let’s look at the original statement:
The syntax is correct, buttricky: The meaning of the statement is not “The military trains people to not think” but this: “The military does not train people to think, it trains them to obey”. Which, stated differently again, means that the military does not do training of people’s thinking either way. Instead, it trains people to obey orders. Which, by implication, means not thinking for yourself, or at least, you can think all you want, but when it comes to acting, you act only on orders. Which is why you get half points for the round.
Next:
This is an incomplete, so we’re throwing it out of competition. First of all, because you havent’ cited your sources, and secondly, because you are already ramping up to discredit any source I might cite. And on what authority would you be doing that? Are you the final decision on what authority is credible? If so, it makes it kinda hard to debate anything, doesn’t it?
bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz We’ve demonstrated that this is not the case. You have paraphrased and interpreted. Zero points again!
Retract what?
Monty! It’s only a game - please try to calm down or you may be disqualified.
As we’ve seen, this question sprang from a false assumption, so it doesn’t really call for an answer.
Well, despite the fact that my father-in-law was born in a camp, I wouldn’t hold it against anyone who was involved, except the bigoted idiots at the top that came up with the policy. As we’ve seen, the military trains its people to obey, not follow their own code of morality. To fail to obey would have likely resulted in court-martial.
So what would I actually say? “Wow, what a bummer that you had such shitty duty! Must have made you feel kinda bad, huh? I bet you would rather have been shooting real Japs in the Pacific than guarding your fellow Americans. My sympathies.”
Let’s see, your final score appears to be half a point. Ouch. But thanks for playing!
Ya know, if you wanna attack me on unassailable fact, fine.
You wanna attack my opinions for what they are, great.
You wanna bust me for things I’ve actually said, go for it.
You wanna pick apart my posts, sentence by sentence? Fab - just make sure you keep them in context.
But it’s incredibly tiresome to have a discussion/debate/argument with someone who invents things to argue with. Especially since it is so easy to go back and see exactly what I said, and what the context was.
So allow me to lead you back to reality…
bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Oh, I’m so sorry, Monty! But with assertions like that you won’t be going on to our bonus round!
Here’s the real answer:
Note the initial generalization, followed by the word “particularly”, not “exclusively”, not “singularly”, not “only”. It means only what it plainly seems to mean: “especially”.
Note also the the words: “the definition of”, which again, does not mean “the only definition of” the only instance of" “the single occurance” or anything of the kind. It is merely held up as a particularly (see definition above) good example.
These are the kinds of details that can trip you up and keep you from winning the grand prize! Let’s see how you did on the next question:
bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Oh no! Too bad… but as you can see, if your starting assertion is false, the conclusions which follow will ALSO be false! Double whammy! That’s really gonna hurt in the final scoring!
Let’s move on:
Ding Ding Ding! Nice recovery, Monty! However, we can only give you half points on this one, since it is a matter of some interpretation. Let’s look at the original statement:
The syntax is correct, buttricky: The meaning of the statement is not “The military trains people to not think” but this: “The military does not train people to think, it trains them to obey”. Which, stated differently again, means that the military does not do training of people’s thinking either way. Instead, it trains people to obey orders. Which, by implication, means not thinking for yourself, or at least, you can think all you want, but when it comes to acting, you act only on orders. Which is why you get half points for the round.
Next:
This is an incomplete, so we’re throwing it out of competition. First of all, because you havent’ cited your sources, and secondly, because you are already ramping up to discredit any source I might cite. And on what authority would you be doing that? Are you the final decision on what authority is credible? If so, it makes it kinda hard to debate anything, doesn’t it?
bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz We’ve demonstrated that this is not the case. You have paraphrased and interpreted. Zero points again!
Retract what?
Monty! It’s only a game - please try to calm down or you may be disqualified.
As we’ve seen, this question sprang from a false assumption, so it doesn’t really call for an answer.
Well, despite the fact that my father-in-law was born in a camp, I wouldn’t hold it against anyone who was involved, except the bigoted idiots at the top that came up with the policy. As we’ve seen, the military trains its people to obey, not follow their own code of morality. To fail to obey would have likely resulted in court-martial.
So what would I actually say? “Wow, what a bummer that you had such shitty duty! Must have made you feel kinda bad, huh? I bet you would rather have been shooting real Japs in the Pacific than guarding your fellow Americans. My sympathies.”
Let’s see, your final score appears to be half a point. Ouch. But thanks for playing!
“Whoops . . . for whatever reason, I read that as " . . .that those who have not been through boot camp can never know.” Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy on my part."
Great! Now I can agree with you when you stated:
“Serving in the military does not confer upon you special insight into the nature of freedom nor does it elevate you amongst the citizenry.”
I’d feel better about our alliance if you paid more attention to detail
Even with a mere half point, I’m way ahead of you in the Reality Arena, Stoiee. Here’s exactly what you said (scroll up if you don’t believe me):
Here’s the way folks with an understanding of both English and Logic glean from that remark before the parentheses and my comments on that within the parentheses):
You don’t like folks going to war. Yet you’ve stated there’s a war you liked. Hmmm…so you’d rather have folks with no training whatsoever just up and get killed? You also indicated that we’re not good enough for you but we’re good enough to do your killing. That’s one hell of a moral stance, isn’t it?)
You dislike folks learning how to kill. (Too bad. As I said just above, you seem to think we’re good enough to do your killing for you. Why shouldn’t I be trained how to kill to preserve both my life and the lives of my fellows?)
You seem to think that obeying and thinking are mutually exclusive. (I, on the other hand, have proven on this board and the previous incarnation of the SDMB that those of us in the United States military are not only expected to think but are punished by a code of law passed by CONGRESS and signed by the PRESIDENT if we obey unlawful and immoral orders. Of course that law was passed in the 1960s so don’t bring it up in a discussion of the WW2 camps.)
“Retract what?” you ask? Why, the bullshit you’ve posted here, of course. You may have noticed I’m not the only one who’s challenged you here. At least you attempted to answer the question. And with one single word in that “answer,” you showed the world what kind of racist bigot you are. Now that you’ve shown that, the presumption arises that you called the 2nd World War a just and righteous war because it was waged, in part, against a country which is mostly of one race.
To the rest of the lurkers and posters on this board: I’m taking bets as to how long before Stoidela posts “some of my best friends…”
What obvious to anyone with any kind of understanding is that you are deeply offended by the fact that I feel no kinship with people who choose the military for a career or a job. You are determined to make me wrong because of my own personal feelings, which I am certainly entitled to have. But you case is no stronger now than when you first made it. Feel free to be offended… But stick to being offended for what is real, not what you invent.
Again, Monty, you are making things up as you go along.
Let’s start with what I said at the very beginning
Now, anyone who understands both English and logic, and who also has no personal investment in being offended by what I’m saying, understands that I am drawing a comparison here. And what I’m saying is this:
Butchering animals for food and butchering people for war are both distasteful jobs. Jobs that I (as stated above, very clearly) appreciate having done for me, so that I do not have to do it for myself. Why? Because I find both things disturbing, distasteful, and disgusting. I could never do either of them. I also clearly state that I know I am benefitting from other people’s willingness to do these things. I also clearly state that I am grateful for it.
Now, because I find these things foreign, disturbing and virtually impossible to do myself, I don’t understand or relate to people who DO do them, of their own volition. I don’t feel I have common ground with such people.
Therefore, I do not choose to have these people in my circle of friends.
I do not say here, (nor do I mean, much as you want me to) or in any other post:
I hate them
They are beneath me.
They are not good enough.
I am better than they are.
Now, perhaps in your world, everyone is divided up into people who are “as good as me” and “Better than me” “worse than me”, and that’s it. And anyone who fits into these categories is either your friend, your dream, or your doormat. Great. That’s your way of running your life. It’s not mine.
In my world view, for the purposes of personal relationships, people are “similar to me” and “different from me” and “extremely different from me” . They are also many other things, but these are pertinent to the discussion. My true friends are exclusively from category one and two. Military people fall into category three.
You apparantly do two things I don’t do:
Compare everyone you meet to yourself to determine who is better or worse
and interestingly,
are willing to take as your friend anyone who is judged “worthy”.
I’m a little pickier than that. I don’t hang out with just anybody. I need to relate to people I’m going to spend my time with.
No, not “some” of my best friends, Monty, my *very best friend, * my husband. Which, if you’d bothered to read carefully, you would have realized.
I guess my racism doesn’t extend to the man I sleep with, live with and will be spending the rest of my life with.
And with that single remark, you have revealed exactly how cursory and shallow your reading is, and exactly why you keep going into reaction without really considering what it is you are reacting to.
So, unless and until you choose to attack me for things I have actually said and positions I have actually taken, I am not going to keep taking time to correct you - especially when you persist in deciding you know what I “meant”. Take it at face value and fight with that, or don’t bother me.
Whew!!! Well, I’m glad that’s all over with. Can we return to the topic, folks? I get a little uncomfortable when I see personal attacks with the content of recent posts on this thread. I understand this is the BBQ Pit, but some of the stuff here is “over the top”. I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised, due to the controversial topic, but I have this rather naive idea that we should be able to talk rationally about something without being overly confrontational. Small doses of ire do have a place in debate, but long, drawn-out rants do little to advance the discussion. 'Nuff said…I await the wrath of all concerned.
FWIIW - If the misquoting of your words bother you so much, you may want to choose your words a bit more careful next time. Monty may not have quoted you exact, but you sure came across the way he interpreted.
>^,^<
KITTEN
He who walk through airport door sideways going to Bangkok. - Confucius
Thanks; however, I’m not all that concerned anyone really believes Stoi’s statements. I rank her latest aspersions right down there with her assertions that the US government was an accomplice to mass murder in 1941 and that we in the military are out to butcher people as a way of life.
BTW, I bet she’s a real riot at family gatherings, what with the bandying about of racial slurs.
Mayb my mistake was expecting a logical response from an illogical person.
I’m more than willing to concede that you don’t feel that you are a better person than people in the military; that was just an unfortunate choice of words that were easy for anyone else to misconstrue.
However, your next group of statements contains this gem, concerning what the military does:
Once again you have left yourself wide open to flames.
Yes, the military goes to war. As a last resort, yes. If you think that those of us down at the sharp end are some kind of homocidal psychos with sick grins and a hard-on for human misery, then you’re wrong; in fact, the military does a damned fine job at weeding those types out and seeing them off.
Yes, it trains people to kill. On the general assumption that wars are won by detroying your enemy’s ability to make war and/or their will to wage war. To do so, you have to kill. This has been true since the first primitive men defended their waterholes from other tribes; you are not going to change two million years of evolution with a half a century of “enlightened” social thought.
BTW, the military also trains people how to cook, clean, organize, heal (never heard of medics or corpsman? or even nurses and doctors?) fly, drive, auto mechanics, jet mechanics, demolitions, hydraulics, pneumatics, electronics, plumbing, carpentry, electrical wiring, communications, and a whole host of other jobs abd skills that have routine civillian applications.
Also: our military is just as involved in and as good at humanitarian relief as it is in waging war. It comes from the logistical organization necessary to move a combat-ready force any where in the world on twenty-four hours notice with the necessary materials and firepower to effectively wage war.
And your last one’s a truly disingenuous piece of work: !!NO!! The military does NOT train you NOT to think; au contraire, you silly little granola-munching fruitcake.
The best advice I ever got in the military was along the lines of “Think about what you are doing”, “Put your brain in gear before you run your mouth” (I personally think you could benefit from this), and “Prior Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performane” Gee, the 5P’s as we called 'em; wouldn’t “prior planning” indicate some general ability to think?
The only thing even close to remotely true about the last statement is that, at fifth and last, when the shit hits the fan, and you’re given a lawfull order to carry out, you DO IT! Quibble, bitch, moan and complain about it later, after your mission is complete.
If you feel that the order is unlawfull and don’t obey, then you are going to get your ass court-martialed; if found guilty, your’re in deeeeep shit.
If found not guilty, you are exonerated, restored to active duty with no loss of rank or pay, and the person that gave you the illegal order in the first place takes over the hot seat from you.
Why don’t you join the military and know of which you speak from first hand experience, as opposed to getting your info about it second-hand from Time, Newsweek, US News & World Report, Utne Reader, Mother Jones, American History Mag, The Nation, LA Times, NY Times, Brill’s Content, Business Week, Smart Money, Atlantic Monthly, Harpers, Discover, Scientific American, Nature, Smithsonian, The New Yorker, PBS, The Discovery, History, and Learning channels, Animal Planet, 60 Minutes, CNN, Wired, Wired News, CNET news, and anywhere from 2 to 6 non-fiction books monthly, ranging from financial advice to technical manuals, spirtuality and gossip.
<FONT COLOR=“GREEN”>ExTank</FONT>
Here’s some spiritual advice for you: “My driver once said to me ‘Sarge, I got a case of the Ass!’. I told him ‘Don’t sweat the small shit, Bubba. You had the ass before you had teeth.’”
Here’s a tantalizing tidbit. Retrieved from Purdue University website, it appears for all the world to be an excerpt from a declassified Top Secret memorandum of hearings conducted back in 1944 on Pearl Harbor.
Check it out:
[1] 1. General. Information from informers and other means as to the
activities of our potential enemy and their intentions in the
negotiations between the United States and Japan was in possession of
the State, War and Navy Departments in November and December of 1941.
**Such agencies had a reasonably complete disclosure of the Japanese plans
and intentions, and were in a position to know what were the Japanese
potential moves that were scheduled by them against the United States.
Therefore, Washington was in possession of essential facts as to the
enemy’s intentions. **
(Well fancy that!)
This information showed clearly that war was inevitable and late in
November absolutely imminent. It clearly demonstrated the necessity for
resorting to every trading act possible to defer the ultimate day of
breach of relations to give the Army and Navy time to prepare for the
eventualities of war.
The messages actually sent to Hawaii by either the Army or Navy gave
only a small fraction on this information. No direction was given the
Hawaiian Department based upon this information except the “Do-Don’t”
message of November 27, 1941. **It would have been possible to have sent
safely information, ample for the purpose of orienting the commanders in
Hawaii, or positive directives could have been formulated to put the
Department on Alert Number 3.
This was not done.**
Under the circumstances, where information has a vital bearing upon
actions to be taken by field commanders and this information cannot be
disclosed by the War Department to its field commanders, it is incumbent
upon the War Department the [2] to assume the responsibility for
specific directions to the theater commanders. This is an exception to
the admirable policy of the War Department of decentralized and complete
responsibility upon the competent field commanders.
Short got neither form of assistance from the War Department. The
disaster of Pearl Harbor would have been eliminated to the extent that
its defenses were available on December 7 if alerted in time. The
difference between alerting those defenses in time by a directive from
the War Department based upon this information and the failure to alert
them is a difference for which the War Department is responsible, wholly
aside from Short’s responsibility in not himself having selected the
right alert.
America knwing all about the Japanese attack and doing nothing to prevent the casualties? Whoda thunk it!
Stoidela
Don’t meddle in the affairs of dragons, cuz, like, you’re crunchy
and taste good with ketchup.
Okay. I’ll buy that for a dollar. Though I think you must agree that to choose the military one’s attitude towards the dirty details of war are probably a little more relaxed than mine, yes?
Excellent points, sir! And I applaud your making them! Rather than simply screaming at me for my feelings, you have done the clever, classy and cool thing: countered my negatives with the positives, which I confess I hadn’t been thinking of.
I believe I covered this.
Awww, Ex! Here you had to go and disappoint me by descending the general level around here. And you were doing so well!
I’d last about 10 seconds. Remember Private Benjamin? I TOTALLY relate…at least until she get her shit together. I couldn’t BELIEVE she didn’t run home with her parents! (Well, not really…her parents were so condescending it was nauseating. Better the Army, indeed!)
In fact, it struck me last night how funny it is that so many leapt to the conclusion that I thought myself “better” than military types, given that I said somewhere early on that “others, more courageous than me” - thereby indicating at least one admirable characteristic, courage, that military people have boatloads more of than me. So it would seem that if anything, I was saying they were better than me, wouldn’t it? At least in one regard.
Anyway, thanks for sharing. (And gosh, please…space your paragraphs!)
Stoidela
Don’t meddle in the affairs of dragons, cuz, like, you’re crunchy
and taste good with ketchup.
Looks like my suspicion regarding your assessment of credible sources proved true.
If in your book the Congress of the United States does not qualify as a credible source for facts regarding the conduct and knowledge of the United States , well, then…(Shrugs hopelessly and exits)
Stoidela
Don’t meddle in the affairs of dragons, cuz, like, you’re crunchy
and taste good with ketchup.
