Login

mcolafson · (This post was last modified: September 27, 2016 at 7:39 pm by mcolafson.)

Another case of USA defending itself outside of USA borders....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banana_massacre

The Telegram from Santa Marta Consulate to the U.S. Secretary of State
Feeling against the Government by the proletariat which is shared by some of the soldiers is high and it is doubtful if we can depend upon the Colombian Government for protection. May I respectfully suggest that my request for the presence within calling distance of an American warship be granted and that it stand off subject to my call

Mechaghostman2 · September 27, 2016 at 7:37 pm

(September 27, 2016 at 7:24 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Well, first off, we're not bombing North Korea. And while your list is both true and odious, they were largely devoid of involvement by our military. The blame lies much more in Foggy Bottom, Langley, and the Oval Office than it does the Pentagon.

And while as a veteran agree that we aren't often defending ourselves in our foreign (mid) adventures, having troops stationed in foreign countries is a form of defending our country, because 1) we want to fight wars on soil other than our own, and 2) supporting our alliances is a form of defense.

As I said, there are many military policies and operations I was and am against. But I wouldn't disrespect the service performed by my brothers and sisters in uniform.

But the soldiers are the ones that enforce the shit that the lawyers in congress and the white house come up with. In the words of Einstein, war will only stop when people refuse to go. People with money and power are always going to wage war to protect and expand their property, and they use a bunch of clueless young people with false senses of nationalism and duty to do it. If the people refused to go to war, then the rich and powerful would have no choice but to either think harder about how they're going to secure their property, or they'll have to fight for themselves. It's time people started waking up to the real reasons behind these wars, and that WWII was the last justified war or military conflict that the US has ever gotten involved in.

Ron Paul has it right when it comes to our foreign policy.

mcolafson · September 27, 2016 at 7:51 pm

(September 27, 2016 at 5:32 pm)mlmooney89 Wrote: Go ahead tell an army brat that being deployed isn't defending your country. You think my first post on this thread was wordy and blunt I will lay into you so hard it isn't even funny. Please for both of us recant that question.

My grandfathers happened to kill some Germans who were defending their country in my country.
Oh, these men were not evil aggressors, they were only deployed there...

**brewer** · September 27, 2016 at 8:31 pm

(September 27, 2016 at 7:51 pm)mcolafson Wrote: My grandfathers happened to kill some Germans who were defending their country in my country.

Since you seem to be country bashing, what is your country?

Thumpalumpacus · September 28, 2016 at 1:03 am

(September 27, 2016 at 7:37 pm)Mechaghostman2 Wrote: But the soldiers are the ones that enforce the shit that the lawyers in congress and the white house come up with. In the words of Einstein, war will only stop when people refuse to go. People with money and power are always going to wage war to protect and expand their property, and they use a bunch of clueless young people with false senses of nationalism and duty to do it. If the people refused to go to war, then the rich and powerful would have no choice but to either think harder about how they're going to secure their property, or they'll have to fight for themselves. It's time people started waking up to the real reasons behind these wars, and that WWII was the last justified war or military conflict that the US has ever gotten involved in.

Ron Paul has it right when it comes to our foreign policy.

Einstein's right ... but very unrealistic.

Jesster · September 28, 2016 at 2:01 am

(September 27, 2016 at 7:37 pm)Mechaghostman2 Wrote: But the soldiers are the ones that enforce the shit that the lawyers in congress and the white house come up with. In the words of Einstein, war will only stop when people refuse to go.

Wait, have you ever been in the military? It doesn't sound like you have been. Once you're in, you have no rights. Enjoy that prison cell after you ignore orders. It's a long stay in there. Dishonorable discharge is a fun label to carry around with you as well.

**The Grand Nudger**

Soldiers do what they're told for shitty pay (prolly the best they've ever seen, though), three hots and a cot - or else.

...and everything before the "or else" is hit and miss.

Thumpalumpacus · (This post was last modified: September 28, 2016 at 2:29 am by Thumpalumpacus.)

(September 28, 2016 at 2:01 am)Jesster Wrote:
(September 27, 2016 at 7:37 pm)Mechaghostman2 Wrote: But the soldiers are the ones that enforce the shit that the lawyers in congress and the white house come up with. In the words of Einstein, war will only stop when people refuse to go.

Wait, have you ever been in the military? It doesn't sound like you have been. Once you're in, you have no rights. Enjoy that prison cell after you ignore orders. It's a long stay in there. Dishonorable discharge is a fun label to carry around with you as well.

As for the obvious reply -- "They weren't drafted!" -- the fact is that in other nations they often are, and we'd be fools to not only have our voluntary military (which is, I think, the best sourcing in a country of our population), but to allow them to veto orders after they've enlisted.

Military discipline is in place for a reason, and that reason is the same reason we enlisted: the nation needs to be able to depend upon its forces to act decisively once the policy has been set.

It's a hell of a lot easier to change 539 minds than it is to change 1.4 million minds. If you want real change in the policies of this country, vote out the assholes who are happy to spend the blood of servicemen and -women for the benefit of the moneyed interests.

**The Grand Nudger**

Technically, they can "veto orders". Or, rather, some are veto'd pre-emptively. A soldier cannot be tried for failing to comply with an unlawful order. They also have an inalienable right to miss.

Thumpalumpacus · (This post was last modified: September 28, 2016 at 3:01 am by Thumpalumpacus.)

(September 28, 2016 at 2:34 am)Rhythm Wrote: Technically, they can "veto orders". Or, rather, some are veto'd pre-emptively. A soldier cannot be tried for failing to comply with an unlawful order. They also have an inalienable right to miss.

Of course. But the legal ramifications for such are long-winded and expensive. And, more to what I think your point is, a good leader has his thumb pretty close on the pulse of his unit and won't ask them to do the unreasonable?

I received, and gave, a few orders that tested this line of thinking -- but fortunately for me, I knew the guys in the building, and the guys on the truck I commanded, so it wasn't so much that the orders told me or them what to do as they did ratify what I already knew to be the right answer.

Admittedly very different from higher-echelon commands, where complexity and scope of command give rise to deep questions.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	Who else passionately hates rednecks?	Mechaghostman2	39	3687	May 31, 2016 at 11:37 pm Last Post: ignoramus
	Hatred And Hypocrisy At AF	BrianSoddingBoru4	124	24905	July 17, 2015 at 12:38 pm Last Post: dyresand
	Hatred	LastPoet	10	2946	August 26, 2013 at 10:08 am Last Post: downbeatplumb