The American "Hero"

A person becomes a hero, or not, depending on the decisions he makes, in the face of his worst fears.
There is no such thing as a long drawn out process to becoming hero. It isn't anything you can sign up
for. It happens in the very second a decision is made. There is a wide range of decisions a person can make,
that weather others notice or not, can make him a hero. I think one way to dishonor our true heros and the many unsung hero's would be to jump the gun and give any fool that signs up for something hero status.

You can do some brave things in life and never become a hero. Soldiers are all brave men or they wouldn't be there. Very few get a chance to be hero to the rest. That's how I see it. This is all I have to say.

Originally posted by Brood

I'm glad you're so quick to defend thee actions of the military based on defense of rights and freedoms that don't exist.

I reckon they probably don't anymore. I can recall a time when they did, but that was long before the government decided they could declare me a "terrorist" because I don't see things their way, or that they could pay off cronies by forcing me to buy their "services". Not gonna happen. We'll see how that goes in my case, and I despair of any one else standing against it. I tell ya true, I'll die before I concede, and I know a bit about death.

I implore you, answer this question and you will receive some credibility: what rights and freedoms of America are you defending by being in the Middle East right now? Seriously, do not speak a word other than answering this, and you will gain my respect.

I'm not fool enough to think I'll ever gain your respect. Please don't patronize me. Fact is, the "Middle East" covers a pretty wide area. I must presume you mean Iraq, but it could as easily be Kuwait, Qatar, or Saudi Arabia. I do believe we even have a base in Yemen - at least I was offered a gig guarding that one when it was built, which I declined. Most Americans class Afghanistan as "Middle Eastern", but it's really Southwest Asia. So, to narrow it down, let's just stick to Iraq, since that seems to be on most folks' minds. I'm not there, never was. I nearly went over to guard that pretty new Embassy for DynCorp, but got a short notice, and didn't get my paperwork in order in time. That turns out to have been a GOOD thing.

Anyhow, you may not have got the memo that combat ops in Iraq are "over". Obama said so. My best guess is that the troops left there now are guarding the same freedoms as the troops in Germany, Okinawa, and Ft. Benning, Ga. That would be NONE at the moment, but I'll tell you this, they're all damn well standing ready if the need arises.

Now, if you'd like to include Afghanistan in your conception of the "Middle East", where there IS still combat going on, I'd have an entirely different answer for you. How say you?

Every time I ask you a serious question regarding REAL GLOBAL ISSUES you immediately right them off on this generic idea of the American "hero" and your brainwashing on how soldiers are to be regarded, and the American Military should always be trusted because they protect our "rights and freedoms".

My "brainwashing". Nice. I've actually been to SEE the elephant, and had fine young opposition men shooting at me like they really MEANT it, probably while you were still in diapers, or even before. What have YOU seen with your own eyes, that I shouldn't apply "brainwashed" to your conception of reality - gained, I suspect, from the internet rather than eyesight?

I must have missed your "serious question" on "REAL GLOBAL ISSUES". For that I apologize, and respectfully request that you repeat it, clearly enough that even us doddering, brainwashed fools can understand what you're asking.

Nor have I said that the American military should "always be trusted". I don't trust generals worth a damn, and last I heard THEY were military, too. Now, your average soldier, heroic or not, probably has a better notion of why he does what he does better than anyone who isn't inside his skin. If he says that he's protecting me from anything at all, I have to respect that as his motivation.

If it is your honest "opinion" that the war in Iraq protects America's rights and freedoms, I know of 6 billion people that would be happy to argue against you based on the REAL TERROR that America is spreading across the globe to procure resources and supply routes to further income for certain corporations that have way too much control over American politics. Don't let your emotions get in the way of your rational thinking.

I can't say what 6 billion people think. They can think as they like, I'm not in charge of them OR their "protection" from anything. I thought I'd made it abundantly clear that they can protect themselves, and not look to me for it any more. They can argue against me all they like, it's not going to change what I already know. The ones who are "scared" of "American terror" probably ought to be, because their clocks can get cleaned as easily as anyone elses.

See, the mistake you're making here is assuming that i give a rat's ass what the rest of the world thinks. I don't. To be honest, I can name off a wide swath of AMERICANS whose opinions don't count for much with me.

Now, the part about securing supply lines, resources, furthering corporate incomes etc, etc,... that's the same old song and dance I hear so often to mask folk's own insecurities. Don't apply those insecurities to MY emotions.

My case was a special case, not the general military bashing you're used to. Folks seem to like bashing MY type a lot more even than normal soldiers, but that's OK. They get what they pay for, eh? I went where I agreed to go, not where I was sent. Sometimes my objectives and an employer's objectives coincided, but more often they didn't precisely converge, they just overlapped. That didn't matter to me. I knew why I went, and if their objective was accomplished at the same time, OK. In short, they might send me because they wanted something, but I only went if I wanted something. If that didn't happen to be the same two somethings, then one or the other must have been a side benefit, but I did my damndest to get the job done to my own satisfaction. Usually, though, both objectives were in the same direction, if not the same precise result. Otherwise, the trip just wouldn't happen.

So what are the "REAL GLOBAL ISSUES" you're on about? I thought the idea was to bash brainwashed vets, folks you consider too dumb to realize why they do what they do, going by the OP.

Sorry, I forgot to address this bit:

Originally posted by Brood
Truth is, we don't care that you're not defending our rights and freedoms anymore because there is NOTHING ATTACKING THEM.

If you believe that to be true, thank a vet.

If you want it to CONTINUE being true, support your current soldiers.

I guarantee that if you keep telling them to carry their brainwashed selves on, AND if they decide that's the thing to do, that sooner or later your going to find the case isn't just as you think it is.

Then, who will be there when you ARE attacked?

Not me. I've learned my lesson. If the rest of them ever decide the same thing, you'll have to carry your OWN pitchfork. Whatcha gonna do then?

Just a word to the wise, I would give nenothtu's comments more than a few moments of your time. From what I've gathered from my time here, he's been around the proverbial block a few times.

That being said, it seems more often than not these arguments and discussions take place from a black and white perspective. Both sides certainly have their own validity, though nenothtu's comments seem to address the gray areas from a more experienced perspective.

For those that think I came in here to brown nose nenothtu, I can assure you that I don't give a rats ass and he wouldn't appreciate it anyway. There are more reasons than most realize for our ongoing military operations in the Middle-East, Asia and beyond. I can assure you that we are not engaged in daily conflict for McDonald's, Wal-mart, Wall Street, or any other corporate entity you can name off. Corporations will always profit in some way off of war, they always have and they will continue to do so. To place the foundation of our military engagements solely on monetary grounds is a practice in narrow-sightedness and naivety.

reply to post by Shark VA84


Black and white vs shades of gray... that's EXACTLY the concept I was grasping for! When I was younger, I was a horrid little ideologue, seeing EVERYTHING as black and white only, and missing the subtleties. As I got older, I saw more of the shades of gray, and it brings out better detail in the overall picture.

An excellent analogy. To illustrate it, take a photo, convert it to grayscale, then start decreasing the color depth from 256 shades of gray down to only 2, black and white, and see how much you lose.

Ever spoke to an enemy soldier at night, across a border? It will surprise you to find out that soldiers are pretty much the same, wherever they come from, whatever their ideology. They've got "heroes" too, as much as you may detest the thought. They fear sergeants and dislike 2nd lieutenants, same as we do. Best not to tell 'em if you ARE one! They complain about the food, and put their pants on the same as we do - one leg at a time.

Ever caught one of your own with his hand in the cookie jar, and had to do something about it?

Yeah, things like those will bring out those shades of gray over time. Heroes aren't developed or made, they just ARE, and you don't know who it will be until the grease gets hot. They aren't restricted to one side or the other - and as far as I can tell, no side is completely devoid of them, our own included, perhaps to the chagrin of some posters here. It's sort of scary to see such blind cynicism in young folks. That's supposed to be reserved for old farts like me.

I see a lot of folks here seeing only black and white now, which suggests they're fairly young, or perhaps just haven't seen enough to flesh out the picture. Back/white, left/right... an extreme of any sort lacks depth perception. Nothing wrong with being an idealist, really, but we all grow out of it if we live long enough. I'm told age brings on it's own sort of black/white dichotomy, so I'll be on the lookout for that...

Also, ascribing all conflict to "corporations", and demonizing them, lacks perspective, in my book. Just because a corporation profits from something, that doesn't mean it has always instigated it. Sometimes, they're just opportunists, vultures of a sort. Like Rahm Emanuel, they don't want a good crisis to go to waste. Nor are they all inherently evil, although some are.

Stop and think - those blaming all the worlds ills on "corporations" - they do so by getting on the internet, through a corporate ISP, typing on a computer, probably produced by a corporation (at the very least, the components were made by one), while eating and drinking products bought from a corporate grocery store, produced and processed by yet other corporations. They watch tv produced by corporations, on electronic boxes made by corporations, drive corporate-produced cars fuelled by middle eastern oil... My God, the list is endless!

Ironic, no?

Here's an experiment - rather than trashing corporations in general on the internet, get up tomorrow morning, pile everything in your house with a corporate origin in the front yard, have a bonfire, and do no more business with them. Starve the beast, don't complain about what you are getting benefits from. Kill it dead. Don't support the "corporate wars" you so detest by doing business with them!

No, I'm NOT defending corporations, I'm just saying have the courage of your convictions. Put your money where your mouth is. That's what I do. If I have a problem with any corporate entity, I just don't do business with it.

I'll be looking for the smoke from all those bonfires in the morning....

Ever spoke to an enemy soldier at night, across a border? It will surprise you to find out that soldiers are pretty much the same, wherever they come from, whatever their ideology. They've got "heroes" too, as much as you may detest the thought. They fear sergeants and dislike 2nd lieutenants, same as we do. Best not to tell 'em if you ARE one! They complain about the food, and put their pants on the same as we do - one leg at a time.

In this way, ALL soldiers are the same, doesnt matter what side you fight for, or WHEN you served, we soldiers all had the same complaints, even 2,000 years ago We're all the same, no matter what uniform we put on...
Can I use this quote?

Sorry, but there are many studies which expose american corporate interests in countries prior to and during our invasions, and often they show a disturbing trend. Your "shades of grey" is way off the mark, none of us criticizing the US have problems with shades of grey, we have problems with our government acting like its all white, then wondering why they get splattered with brown when their past actions hit the fan. We have a well documented history of disrupting fledgling democracies, of putting monetary cares ahead of the needs of our general populace, and of lieing to the public in order to get them to support illegal wars. We have staged false flag events, we have done human experimentation upon our own military, and upon our own civilians, all well documented and declassified in our own government papers by the FOIA. Your patronization is galling. I have served 12 years too, and came to my own realizations During that service. And i would never want or expect your "protection", that is something i am totally willing and able to do for myself, thank you. I think its already been shown that your form of "protection" has only increased the threat of terror and attack in the US, and if the US continues its assaults in the ME and expands them the way it seems to be favoring into south america, who knows what last straw will ignite a third great conflagration. Im sure that when the plan to assassinate franz ferdinand was made, they never thought it would erupt into the first war to engulf the whole world.

And Bushido....your comments are worse than ignorant. Yes, we did need the sacrifice of the russian military, but that in no way means that Stalin was anything like a hero. He went on to massacre 30 million of his own people....but in todays jargon i guess that would be termed necessary "collateral damage". You say our soldiers cant fight the government or the corp. Thats the citizens job. I reply to you that whenever the citizens stood up to government or business in our history, those groups used the military and the police to attack the uprisers. How is it fair to say the government and ownership class can use violence against protesters, but the oppressed cannot use violence to defend themselves?

As to the whole "get all your corporate stuff and throw it away, and see where ye are then, sonny!" crap, stop with the hyperbole. Its not successful business that we deride. Its the massive corporations that have become so powerful and rich that they coerce congress into legislating their demands. If you dont know what I mean, look up when Billy Tauzin helped the Pharma industry push through the medicare expansion under bush. They bribed congressmen with multi million dollar post term contracts, and threatened slander and libel, and broke all the rules of congressional votes to get this legislation passed which freed them from government negotiation of prices. This is just one example, but its a powerful one, and more poignant for me because i am a native of Louisiana (Tauzins state). Unfortunately, I do agree that the corporations that make most of our computers, cell phones, shoes, etc use sweatshops and cause many deaths and debilitations in third world nations....sadly its true i could turn my back on all this and just go into the woods and live on my own by my own....but i dont think thats my role.

Now i will ask you and others on here to do me a favor. Please, just state plainly, that you are willing to have your country massacre millions in other nations, to keep countries in third world status, and to promote sweat shops and toxic waste in other countries, so that we can maintain our standard of living. Just state it out plainly, because that is the impression i am starting to get from many of the people i debate on here, they just dont want to admit it. Instead they justify "oh, we are bringing them democracy by bombing them", or "oh, our sweatshops are GOOD for their economy, its more than they normally make" and so on. Just admit it. You are willing to allow others, browns, to suffer and die so that we may enjoy air condition and audis, bose surround sound and filet mignon. Embrace the courage of your convictions.

another few comments. Yes, we left afghanistan, after arming and training bin laden and his mujahideen, and promising that we would help them clean up if they instigated russia to invade. Keeping in mind, that at the time, afghanistan was one of the more westernized and democratic nations in the region, and because of bin ladens antagonism, they (the official government) had to beg russia to come in and save them. This happened, with russia taking over, and then losing to the mujahideen, leading to the breakup of the soviet union, and then we leave bin laden and co high and dry, which allowed the complete control of the taliban to take over afghanistan.

As to Jenna's statistics "most military are middle class"....WRONG...what are you referring to as middle class? The majority of the military are poor, lower class, and immigrants. By the way...household incomes of "35000 to 95000" are NOT the rich. When they speak of the rich sending the poor to win them resources, do you REALLY think we are speaking of families that make less than millions each year? Do you truly think a SINGLE congressman makes as little as 95k a year? No, These are all the working class. As to all that garbage about the ASVAB, and how the average person now scores higher, in the 60's blah blah....ask anyone on here who took it, the asvab was one of the easiest tests ever! I and my best friend went out on a teen drinking binge the night before the recruiter showed up at 4am (shoulda known it was a mistake then) to take us, and we both got 98s. It was far easier than the SAT or ACT. Ok, im getting tired and starting to babble now, i'll get off my soap box. (kinda dizzying from that box after a few glasses of wine anyhow)

When people constantly generalize all armed forces as "heroes" is when we have a problem, and that problem has been here for a long time. It's all really just a wonderful brainwashing technique. All I hear on the topic in the media and within society is how everyone should "support our troops" or claiming soldiers to be heroes. Why should anyone support them? Shouldn't that be the job of the government? It seems like the opposite to me. What are they doing over there that's beneficial for the people in this country? They are NOT protecting anyone in their country, nor are they protecting what people call "freedoms". It's all for the interest of those in power and those in power surely have no interest in the well-being of any soldier.

I understand how sensitive so many people are to the matter, as you may have friends and family members who have served or you may have just been raised to believe whatever you may. Looking at the big picture here, the acts of the armed forces of the United States within the middle east are just as much acts of terrorism as any other believed terrorist group would inflict. However, that's completely fine, because we are not the ones being terrorized..

Why our troops ARE Heros.

If you have never served in Combat you would not understand the truth I am about to say, but try.

Our men and women serving in combat are there because they believe, whether through propaganda, whether through upbringing, whether through their own conscience, that they are doing something for the good of all.

They end up in the combat zone for many many reasons.

None of these things make them a Hero.

What makes them a Hero, is that when the lead is flying. When the blood fills the streets. When chaos ensues all around them. Deep in their heart of hearts, they know they are not fighting and dying for freedom. They know they are not fighting and dying for America. They are fighting and dying for each other!

All else is moot. They are self sacrificing.

Unless you are willing to sacrifice yourself so that they can come home, you need not judge them.

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by badgerprints

Maybe I'm just getting old but it all comes out as a lot of rhetoric and no real point.

I'm not denying that you have a point, but I'd like to restate my position, because I do have a point (@ least I think so ). When I cited the example of Ghandi, perhaps I ought to have also mentioned that bloke who stood in front of the tanks in Tianamen Square. Now that is heroic in my book.
To be clear: of course it takes courage to take up arms & go wherever you're sent to use them. So what? People have been doing that since communities became large enough to need to compete with each other for resources, there's nothing particularly remarkable about it. Amongst them, there is occasionally 1 whose conduct is particularly worthy of note, which is why we have such things as The Congressional Medal Of Honour, The Victoria Cross, Legion D'Honour, etc. Are the recipients heroes? I suspect some are, some were probably just reacting to their circumstances without much prior thought. Still, whether any of us do or dont consider them heroes will largely depend on our view of the conflict &/or conflict in general. However, nobody can deny that their actions were extraordinary. Just as nobody can deny that standing unarmed to defy your opponent & dare them to kill you, for the purpose of a moral victory, is extraordinary.
The point though is that, just like describing a cool beer on a hot day as "awesome" debases the experience of being out in a massive storm, which does actually inspire awe, so calling any soldier (or whatever) a hero debases those who really did do something heroic.

reply to post by nenothtuActually I've been pretty ill recently but, as the saying goes, I soldier on More like "the dude abides"... Glad you're still here!
Gotta ask, since when did people start hanging wallpaper in concrete bunkers?
Anyway, WOW! I think that's the 2nd time we've found something to agree on: take it easy mate, a 3rd time & I might die of apoplexy... You're right: bourbon is rank! I just had a mental picture of you as a grizzly Wild Turkey man, kinda like an older cross between Jesse Ventura & Bill Duke in Predator, you know?

There are some "professional" outfits, and there are a LOT of "cowboy" outfits. Sounds like he fell in with one of the latter

Not that he would tell someone like me much, or that, if he had, I'd be in any position to judge military professionalism, but from what he did say, I gather HM Govt were up to their necks in it. He did say that he thought that 2 of the lads were "sneaky beakies" (or spooks, to those of us who only experience this kind of caper vicariously by TV). Given his former specialism, I reckon he'd be able to tell. I dunno, do the likes of MI6 work with "cowboys"?
Yeah, he's well: 2 great kids, lovely wife, business suffering, but whose isn't? Oh right, debt collectors... I'm slightly surprised he hasn't gone in to that himself, seeing as how arse-kicking is the kind of thing he seems to have been put on earth to do!

reply to post by randyvs
Oops, you already said a lot of what I replied to badgerprints. Still, there's nothing wrong with belabouring a good point, I say. Its not like ignorance doesn't get belaboured ad nauseam, eh?
Star for you!

Originally posted by pexx421
Sorry, but there are many studies which expose american corporate interests in countries prior to and during our invasions, and often they show a disturbing trend.

America does business overseas? Wars break out overseas, too, sometimes in countries where Americans are doing business?

Imagine that...

Your "shades of grey" is way off the mark,

I'm sure it's off YOUR mark, but then that's not really the mark I'm aiming at, is it? I suppose my opinion is at least as valid as yours, eh?

none of us criticizing the US have problems with shades of grey, we have problems with our government acting like its all white, then wondering why they get splattered with brown when their past actions hit the fan. We have a well documented history of disrupting fledgling democracies,

"fledgeling democracies"? Where, and why is "democracy" a good thing? I don't much care for a system where the majority shoves me around, and more than a system where the minority shoves me around... but to each his own, I suppose.

of putting monetary cares ahead of the needs of our general populace, and of lieing to the public in order to get them to support illegal wars. We have staged false flag events, we have done human experimentation upon our own military, and upon our own civilians, all well documented and declassified in our own government papers by the FOIA.

You seem to be attempting to blend a plethora if issues and "issuers" all into a grand hunter's stew of Conspiracy, as if they are all one. A "Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory", if you will. Still, you claim to be able to discern the "shades of gray", and condemn "the government" for only seeing one side of things, the white one, while yourself only seeing one side of things - the black one.

"Mystifying" is a generous assessment, I think...

Your patronization is galling.

Good. It's meant to be. That's the very reason for it, to counter patronization from the "other side", and provide same for them.

I have served 12 years too, and came to my own realizations During that service.

You... you... YOU'RE one of us evil terrorists, too? Thanks for coming out of the closet, I'd have never guessed it by the way you seek to tar us all with the same brush.

Welcome out, but mind the slings and arrows...

And i would never want or expect your "protection", that is something i am totally willing and able to do for myself, thank you.

Good. Something we can agree on, then.

I think its already been shown that your form of "protection" has only increased the threat of terror and attack in the US,

And I think that's bunk - but we're both entitled to "think" as we will, eh? Riddle me this: if "my form" of protection is such a dangerous thing for the US, WHERE ARE THE REST OF THE ATTACKS?

I'd rest my case, but I'm sure you'll have some sort of tangled response showing that we have, in fact somehow been under attack the whole time.

and if the US continues its assaults in the ME and expands them the way it seems to be favoring into south america, who knows what last straw will ignite a third great conflagration. Im sure that when the plan to assassinate franz ferdinand was made, they never thought it would erupt into the first war to engulf the whole world.

"Continues it's assaults"? Perhaps you didn't get the memo about the Iraq WITHDRAWAL... but yes, sometimes huge storms spark from tiny disturbances. I recall hearing something about "butterfly wings" in South America causing hurricanes elsewhere. The point is, you never know WHAT will set it off, but you'd damn well better be ready when it does. If we knew what would set it off ahead of time, we could likely stop or minimize it, but historically, that has not been the case.

As to the whole "get all your corporate stuff and throw it away, and see where ye are then, sonny!" crap, stop with the hyperbole. Its not successful business that we deride.

You only deride UNSUCCESFUL businesses? If they're unsuccessful, how are they able to wreak all this havoc you postulate? Seriously, instead of railing against "corporations" and "corporate greed" and "corporate takeover of government" and all the other cute little catch phrases, get specific. Otherwise, I just have to take you at your word when you tar them ALL in general.

That is precisely why I said that I don't do business with corporations I have problems with. SPECIFIC ones, not ALL of them under some sort of blanket.

Is it only American corporations you decry? Aren't there other coporations in other countries doing precisely the same sorts of "business"? South Africa, Britain, Canada, Russia, China... etc? Did I mention that the first corporation I worked for was Canadian?

Its the massive corporations that have become so powerful and rich that they coerce congress into legislating their demands. If you dont know what I mean, look up when Billy Tauzin helped the Pharma industry push through the medicare expansion under bush. They bribed congressmen with multi million dollar post term contracts, and threatened slander and libel, and broke all the rules of congressional votes to get this legislation passed which freed them from government negotiation of prices. This is just one example, but its a powerful one, and more poignant for me because i am a native of Louisiana (Tauzins state).

Just "big" corporations? Which ones? Are they all American? Specificity is the key. You can't hit a target by hosing them all down, except in a general sort of way. The problem is all that collateral damage you visit upon the "good" corporations in the sling fest.

Unfortunately, I do agree that the corporations that make most of our computers, cell phones, shoes, etc use sweatshops and cause many deaths and debilitations in third world nations....

Yet you continue feeding them even while you demonize them... you do realize that they couldn't do any of the things you allege if they had not the money for it, right? Where does that money come from? Consumers, just like you...

What is the term for someone who trashes an entity while enjoying the benefits of it simultaneously?

sadly its true i could turn my back on all this and just go into the woods and live on my own by my own....but i dont think thats my role.

Strangely enough, that's EXACTLY what I'm about to do! Are ya gonna miss me?

Now i will ask you and others on here to do me a favor. Please, just state plainly, that you are willing to have your country massacre millions in other nations,

"Millions"? Really? Where? "Massacre"? Really? Where? Yet you have the gall to accuse ME of "hyperbole"...

to keep countries in third world status,

Their status is up to them, not me.

and to promote sweat shops and toxic waste in other countries, so that we can maintain our standard of living.

"Promote"? You've got the wrong guy altogether on that. I've been griping for years about all the US industry going overseas. Any problems they've created there took jobs along with them.

Just state it out plainly,

Sure, just as soon as YOU state out plainly that the whole world is filled with rainbows and unicorns, and there is no need left in it for the soldier you revile. Yes, revile, and attempt to link through some sort of tortured "logic" to these evil corporations you claim to despise while simultaneously supporting.

Just admit it. You are willing to allow others, browns, to suffer and die so that we may enjoy air condition and audis, bose surround sound and filet mignon. Embrace the courage of your convictions.

I AM a "brown" - well, half any way. I don't "enjoy" A/C, I detest it. I have NO car, much less an Audi, nor do I indulge in any of the other things you list. Your enumeration smells of hyperbole to me.

Courage of my convictions? You bet. I don't feed the beast, and then try to beat it for providing.

How about you?

Originally posted by HomerinNC

Ever spoke to an enemy soldier at night, across a border? It will surprise you to find out that soldiers are pretty much the same, wherever they come from, whatever their ideology. They've got "heroes" too, as much as you may detest the thought. They fear sergeants and dislike 2nd lieutenants, same as we do. Best not to tell 'em if you ARE one! They complain about the food, and put their pants on the same as we do - one leg at a time.

In this way, ALL soldiers are the same, doesnt matter what side you fight for, or WHEN you served, we soldiers all had the same complaints, even 2,000 years ago We're all the same, no matter what uniform we put on...
Can I use this quote?

Yup. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Sure, use the quote however you like.

Originally posted by pexx421
another few comments. Yes, we left afghanistan, after arming and training bin laden and his mujahideen, and promising that we would help them clean up if they instigated russia to invade. Keeping in mind, that at the time, afghanistan was one of the more westernized and democratic nations in the region, and because of bin ladens antagonism, they (the official government) had to beg russia to come in and save them. This happened, with russia taking over, and then losing to the mujahideen, leading to the breakup of the soviet union, and then we leave bin laden and co high and dry, which allowed the complete control of the taliban to take over afghanistan.

I really do get tired of countering this old BS canard. Seems like someone pulls this out of their behind at least once a week.

Rather than set this straight here, I'll just refer you to the other numerous posts where I have ALREADY straightened it out. You can find them yourself - there are scads of them at ATS, and I won't waste time hunting one down for you, since I suspect you'd refuse to listen any how.

The only novel claim is that Afghanistan was one of the "more westernized and democratic nations of the region". That I WILL address.

Baloney, just like the rest of the post.

You DO realize that Najibullah was a communist, in a communist Afghan government, a puppet of the old USSR, right? You Do realize that the Soviets had set him up only a couple of years earlier, right? You DO realize that a particular incident at the Soviet embassy in Kandahar was the pretext the Soviets used to invade, right? I'll leave it to you to ferret out what that incident was. I've seen the cables the Soviets were passing around at the time discussing it, and may even have one laying around here somewhere. I'll try to find it if you're interested, and can read cyrillic. I might even have a translation available if that will help, but being a translation, it won't be the original cable.

Bin Laden was nowhere in-country when the Soviets invaded. He came to the party somewhat later.

Now, if you define a "western democracy" as soviet-style communism, I might be forced to agree with that...

BTW, Karzai will likely suffer the same fate as Najubullah if bleeding hearts insist on imposing "democracy" on Afghanistan. The culture there is not suited to democracy any more than it was suited to communism. I'm all for rooting out and eradicating the Taliban and an al-Qaida components left anywhere in the area, and leaving the Afghans to the warlord brand of "democracy" they so seem to enjoy. I don't even care about leaving them stabilized any more, since that boat has already left the port.

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Actually I've been pretty ill recently but, as the saying goes, I soldier on

More like "the dude abides"... Glad you're still here!

Well I hope you get better real soon!

Gotta ask, since when did people start hanging wallpaper in concrete bunkers?

You know how women can be - always pestering one to redecorate the old bunker to make it look new, and re-arranging the ammo crates and such.

Anyway, WOW! I think that's the 2nd time we've found something to agree on: take it easy mate, a 3rd time & I might die of apoplexy... You're right: bourbon is rank! I just had a mental picture of you as a grizzly Wild Turkey man, kinda like an older cross between Jesse Ventura & Bill Duke in Predator, you know?

My upbringings lean more toward the home made stuff, and less towards the store bought varieties. I can't get a good home made single malt scotch around here, though.

There are some "professional" outfits, and there are a LOT of "cowboy" outfits. Sounds like he fell in with one of the latter

Not that he would tell someone like me much, or that, if he had, I'd be in any position to judge military professionalism, but from what he did say, I gather HM Govt were up to their necks in it. He did say that he thought that 2 of the lads were "sneaky beakies" (or spooks, to those of us who only experience this kind of caper vicariously by TV). Given his former specialism, I reckon he'd be able to tell. I dunno, do the likes of MI6 work with "cowboys"?

They do sometimes. It depends on their specific objective at the time. Think "cannon fodder". Why throw away the decent ones? If he dropped in on that situation, you can probably imagine his chagrin when he's a bloke that knows better.

It's sort of like the way the sneaky Petes will work with ANY of the local riffraff when gathering HUMINT, as long as said riffraff are in a position to get the intel. Had a big flap about that in the US concerning the CIA a few years back. Seems congress would prefer using Harvard grads or squeaky clean folks to infiltrate the seedier parts of the world, and that doesn't often work out well.

Not that I think your mate is any sort of riffraff, I'm just saying that sometimes a fellow can fall into the wrong pigeon hole unintentionally, and want nothing more than to get back OUT. Happens to the very best some times. He probably took a wrong turn in a bad neighborhood, and nothing more. With all those cowboys floating around, bragging about being able to write their name with an Uzi on full auto and such, that world can sometimes be a really bad neighborhood. Those types hogging up the limelight can give the good types, like your friend, a bad name. I can't blame him at all for his reaction.

Yeah, he's well: 2 great kids, lovely wife, business suffering, but whose isn't? Oh right, debt collectors... I'm slightly surprised he hasn't gone in to that himself, seeing as how arse-kicking is the kind of thing he seems to have been put on earth to do!

Glad to hear he's doing ok - or at least staying afloat. I've got faith, business will be fine eventually.

Its not just a matter of our business overseas being in a place where coincidentally we wind up at war. Its Unocal, run by Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and hamad karzai, demanding afghanistan give them the contract for the pipeline, and telling them that if refused, US troops would be on the ground in afghanistan in three months. That was in august of 2001. They were denied again. this is an example of the business i am talking about.

As to "fledgling democracies"....Iran was such under mossadegh, and we overthrew him because he wanted to nationalize the oil so that his country could profit more from it. The same with salvador allende, nelson mandela, and many other populist leaders who were pushing socially beneficial packages that were not good for international corporate profit.

Your comment of my "plethora of conspiracy" distracts from the fact that you fail to address MKULTRA, and the many other experiments done upon americans and soldiers, the Tuskeegee experiment also comes to mind. I stated these as character illuminations of my point. Further, i dont see things as black. While i mistrust the motives when my nation declares democracy upon another nation, what i recognize is that it does provide me one freedom which while limited is quite sweet. I have the freedom to have a family and to share love, and to some degree to persue personal and spiritual growth and learning with those i love. To that extent, I am thankful and appreciative. This in no ways means that I will stop pointing out what it does wrong. I am sure if it was doing MKULTRA et all back then, it is likely doing a more advanced form now.

As to the form of protection and "where are the attacks"....where were the attacks prior to WWII?? we had no overburdening of military or arrogance then, and yet no muslims were rushing over here. I believe we had freedom and democracy back then as well....where were the suicide bombers? yes, you can point out that its easier to get around now, but lets not forget that when our policy was non-intervention, no one was out to get us.

Next, by my "continued assaults" I am referring to the Iran issue we have been fomenting for 3 years now, which I imagine will continue to deteriorate until we, or israel by proxy, finally do attack them. And....let me get this straight....you think leaving 50k soldiers in Iraq signals an end of hostilities in the ME??? Guess your forgetting about afghanistan and pakistan there. Cant BELIEVE you slipped on that one!

Ok now to your bizarre and off key responses to my corporate issue. Its certainly not about unsuccessful corp. My point is that we, or I, dont dislike successful corp on the basis of them being successful. Its when they use their success to influence legislation to the detriment of the people who are sovereign in whatever land they happen to be in. And its no "american corporations"...now they are trans national corporations. You ask "which"...well I certainly aint speaking about "mcdonalds" though they are gross. I am speaking of big pharma, who pushes legislation to make meds extremely expensive, who fabricates studies to sell dangerous drugs, who push legislation to outlaw availability of alternative and natural medicines, and to mandate use of the drugs and chemicals on children vs threat of negligence, and who legislate protection from liability for any damage their vaccines may cause.. Im talking about big oil, who legislate protection from liability from spills and toxicity of their product, who buy and bury emerging technologies that allow more efficient use of oil or of alternative fuels, who destroy the environments of third world countries but have so much power and money that they cant be held accountable. Im talking about big agro, who uses their money and power to push legislation making it increasingly harder for organic or small farms to compete or succeed, who use their power to mandate chemical growing methods and to keep americans ignorant of what is in their food, or that their veggies have been genetically modified. Groups like monsanto who foster their seeds off onto third world countries in disasters, which guarantees that nations dependence on monsanto from then on due to terminator genes and chem fertilizers that ruin the land for any but the monsanto crops from then on.

Last issue, the "millions" we have massacred? Ok, beginning with the natives (20-40 mil), lets add phillipines (500k) Mexico was negligent, and I wont include japan as that was an instigated conflict, but we can move on to vietnam (2-4 million) Laos (750000) cambodia (500000), just to name a few. And then theres an estimated 1.2 million in iraq, so far. I think even if you want to take out the natives, that still ads up to millions. Not, perhaps as bad as stalin or mao, but still respectable. And thats not all, just the largest i could think of without including korea which i actually agree was a justified engagement though....i may change my mind once i educate myself more on it. Not sure, we'll see.

And finally....hey your right. We certainly are free to have our own ideas and opinions. Mine are right of course, and yours are delusional : ), but your still a funny and entertaining old fart. Thanks for the good debate! Always appreciated.

Ah, one last comment....when i make the statement "democracy" its not some ideal that i aspire to. Its a snide dig on how the US claims to promote and be "democracy" and to want it for others. I personally prefer a mix of democratic socialism, with limited capitalism, and know that america is not and never was a "democracy".

Interesting comments on afghan....not surprising. I believe i stated however, that afghanistan was one of the more westernized and democratic nations "in that area" which....isnt really saying much. So was Iran at one time. And im not talking about under the shah....though it certainly was more westernized then!

reply to post by nenothtu

Well I hope you get better real soon!

Cheers! Its looking like a long haul, but I abide...
I couldn't tell you how my mate conducts himself in-theatre, but he's pretty intelligent & got his promotions young, so I'll guess that whatever else he is, a complete dick isn't one of them. I take your point about some kind of diversionary or general arseholery type mission, but I have a real problem imagining this bloke falling into something like that. Its been a fair while now so I'll ask him to tell me more: whatever evidence there may have been must be long buried by now.
Back to the topic though, I do know that some of his time in the army was spent in more than usually dangerous conditions directly related to security within the UK. Nonetheless, I dont consider him a hero, & thats not familiarity breeding contempt either, because I respect him a great deal as a decent dad & loyal friend. Its just that I know for a fact that his service was far from selfless. He enlisted because he knew he'd not have to worry about housing or food, he'd have money in his pocket & get to visit strange & exotic places, meet strange & exotic people & shag the women! As soon as he'd had enough of that, he quit - which I respect him for all the more.