I thouhgt this might be interesting:
http://www.odt.co.nz/campus/university-otago/161793/world-not-safer-after-us-killing-osama-bin-laden
http://www.odt.co.nz/campus/university-otago/161793/world-not-safer-after-us-killing-osama-bin-laden
Osama Bin Laden is Dead
- Thread starter SciWriter
- Start date
, Bin Laden died ten years ago. The Feds use him again for another big plot, to justify a false flag 'dirty bomb attack" for the last oil looting war - Iran war.
They say they dropped Bin Laden's body into sea - because there was no body at all.
They can't show you a film. - there was a 25 minutes black-out. But there are eighty commandoes, how could all cameras on these commandoes' helmet de-functioned at the same time?
They show you a picture of “situation room” that all Obama’s administration members were present. Did they see everything or they just saw something else? It seems none of these elites could describe the event clearly and correctly that we heard the government changed their story again and again in the news.
They say they dropped Bin Laden's body into sea - because there was no body at all.
They can't show you a film. - there was a 25 minutes black-out. But there are eighty commandoes, how could all cameras on these commandoes' helmet de-functioned at the same time?
They show you a picture of “situation room” that all Obama’s administration members were present. Did they see everything or they just saw something else? It seems none of these elites could describe the event clearly and correctly that we heard the government changed their story again and again in the news.
His standard answer is, "No, that's what the volunteer army is for..."
I think the picture you are referring to is admitted to be misleading. It was put out there as some sort of evidence of the whole team watching tensely in awe, although it was not evidence of anything. They admit that they couldn't have been watching the meat of the operation.
Either way, the whole fiasco reeks of propaganda and falsehood.
At this point, I have no faith in anything our government pronounces as gospel concerning events of this magnitude.
And what good has it done? Kill one guy? What did that do? They blow their boastful, fake patriotism trumpet one minute, and the next minute they're telling us how this will only fan the flames, culminating in another attack. So again, what good have they ultimately accomplished, regardless of who they killed?
But our volunteer army exists to protect the US from threats to the US. I've never been convinced that Saddam presented a threat to our country worthy of sacrificing my own life. If I'm not willing to put my own life on the line, how can I ask someone else to? If it were genuinely about self defense, we wouldn't have been worried about what the rest of the world thought. It was as much about self defense as Vietnam was.
The only reason the Bush administration was able to make it happen was by using the misguided fear and anger of the populace following the attack on the WTC. If it were genuinely about self defense, why was this invasion only possible after a completely unrelated attack on our country?
It's hardly fair to expect people not to support a war unless they're willing to make some kind of enormous personal sacrifice for it.
Really? I should think that it ought to be part and parcel. If you are not willing to lay down your own life ( or allow your sons or daughters to do so), for the stated aims of a war, how can you be comfortable asking others to? If the support for a war is as deep as the skin on a cup of Jello pudding, shouldn't that be a warning that perhaps the war ought not to be fought? Shouldn't war be left for when there are no alternatives?
In The fog of War, Robert McNamara said
Not being able to convince our allies would be bad enough. But, if you cannot even convince the population of your own country that the cause is worthy of the sacrifice of some people's lives, and a bit of hardship for everyone else? This is one of the reasons that I thought the Bush administrations policy of not allowing the publication of photos of the coffins of the returning war dead was very wrong. If public opinion can be swayed against military policy because people become aware of what the cost actually is, then so be it. I don't think the people of this country will flinch in the face of sacrificing our sons and daughters, friends and neighbors, if the cause is worthy. But if we let ourselves get talked into something foolish in a moment of fear, and have second doubts when we realize the cost, that is a good thing.
Absolutely, completely agree. This is why I detest wars. Its always about other people dying, the generals are always in an armchair. I preferred the older wars when the kings/generals had to lead the way. If you want a war, you better be out there in the trenches asap
A democracy affords members of its polity the right to support whatever cause they like absent any requirement of personal sacrifice to that end. Demanding otherwise flies in the face of that right. It's an ad hom that cuts both ways; lending more weight to the hawkish arguments of people who do have something to lose. In between, there are people who are unable to enter the military for various reasons - medical, legal, etc. - does the weight of their opinions get prorated according to how hard they really, really wish they could go? The respective pros and cons of going to or remaining at war should be addressed on their own merits, and "LOL chickenhawk" is not a valid argument in either case.
I certainly empathize with the larger point you're making, though. I always found it extremely irritating that supporters of the media ban at Dover AFB would claim that publishing photos of war dead being repatriated in flag-draped coffins would somehow dishonor them, when in fact the exact opposite was true. It was a pretty transparent excuse, while it lasted.
There was no such time. The very creation of kings, generals, etc, marked the end of such war.SAM said:
A king or general leading the way has happened, on rare occasions. And still happens, on rare occasions. But it's not a good policy - they tend to get in the way.
We probably have a higher proportion of fighting being done by people who actually believe in their cause, now, than in the older wars. It doesn't help much.
The spectacle of rich industrialists and their political minions ginning up wars while avoiding even the expense - cutting their own taxes, as well as sequestering their own children and property - does not seem to me to exemplify anyone's "rights".echo said:
For our own safety, in prudence, we should ensure that the people in control of the starting of wars should bear some personal and immediate cost, have some skin in the game.
It's ultimately up to the US electorate to select leaders who won't screw them over.
As an election is coming, this post really belongs in the thread: "Stand by for more bad news."
W/E. The electorate won't be offered any choices that won't screw them over. TPTB will make damn sure of this.
Pretty sure spidergoat doesn't fit that model, bro.
Regardless of their ability to serve, I honestly wonder if people really ask themselves if they would if they could. I hardly think it's too much to ask for people to take a hard look at what is actually being asked of the armed forces, and to put themselves in their place. Since we do live in a representative democracy, ultimately we are the ones deciding to send them to war. Shouldn't we consider that a grave responsibility? Shouldn't we evaluate the case for war as critically as we would if we, or our children, or any other immediate loved ones might be the ones to pay the ultimate price?
Remember the classic Star Trek episode, A Taste of Armageddon?
On a diplomatic mission, the crew visit a planet that is waging a destructive war fought solely by computer simulation, but the casualties, including the crew of the USS Enterprise, are supposed to be real.
The war in Iraq has had virtually no effect on me or my life. I don't personally know anyone who has served. Our combat dead and wounded are little more than numbers to me. I've had to sacrifice nothing. But I do have empathy. I do have an imagination. I can imagine what it must be like for the families that have lost fathers, sons and daughters. Even if I don't know these people, I don't think it's right to send them off to face possible death if I don't feel the evidence warrants it.
Have you read 'Enders Game'?
No, I haven't.
Ender's Game was written by Orson Scott Card in 1985, it contains themes similar to what are being discussed - some might call them the ultimate progression of what's being discussed (link may contain spoilers).
I'll refrain from saying much more than that, other than to say it is an awesome example of SciFi and the entire trilogy deserves to be read (Trilogy? There's six of them - more to track down).
I own Ender's Game, Speaker for the Dead, and Xenocide. I don't recall if I've read the others mentioned in that link.
It contains other relevancies to this discussion as well - for example the Heirachy of Exclusion
No. Apart from Ender's Game, the rest of the series is crap. And yes, I've read multiple of them.
The only other necessary Card book is Treason. If you still can't get enough, try out the Alvin Maker series. But that's really about it; everything else is diminishing returns.