Here is your war on Terrorism ! America !

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

True ideals are born out of the darkest sides of humanity.

Indeed they are. They are also promoted by the darkest, most bloodthirsty side of humanity, in pursuit of some sort of "social evolution". They are one part of "humanities" game plan to enslave the other part, "for their own good". That's what "social evolution" is all about these days, and has been for at least the last 40 or 50 years, and probably longer.

They are the keys to social evolution. Ideals are the bigger picture, the strategic picture.

The phrase "social evolution" leaves me cold, and somewhat shaky. Most of the "social evolution" I've seen has been an attempt to force one faction's notion of what "ought to be" on the rest, and it's left a lot of dead bodies in it's wake.

You can probably tell that I'm not real big on "humanity" as a whole. It's the individuals that make up that "humanity" that live and love, that breathe, eat and die. Especially die, and die especially in these idealist pursuits of "social programming". "Humanity" can plant a big wet one on my ass. I'm all about defending the constituent individuals from this alleged "humanity", and especially the "ideals" promoted in alleged favor of the whole, but in reality in favor of the priviledged few - or those who would like to be in the priviledged few. Those who seek to impose their ideals on the rest, who only want to be left alone.

That's my main gripe with the Afghan war as it stands now, this notion of imposing "democracy" on a people who want no part of it, who are unsuited to it, and who are nowhere near ready for it. I don't believe this sort of "social engineering" is the purpose of a war, nor that a military has any sort of business dabbling in it. Wars and militaries are to kill folks and blow stuff up, until the other side says "uncle", and decides that bothering your side to begin with was probably a bad idea.

Just look at the cold war. It was all about two central yet global ideologies. The battles were all about tactical gains, but the war was for an ideal.

Yes, I look at the "Cold War" (what a name for a "war"!) frequently, whether I want to or not. I'm not sure it was about "ideologies" per se, as much as limiting those ideologies and preventing them from overrunning more people.

Or, it could just have been the two biggest bullies on the block picking on the smaller, more impressionable kids in order to keep from coming to blows among themselves. Didn't always work that way - licks were traded occasionally anyhow.

Holy Crap!

And earlier, I got shredded because I made a little money . . . a fair amount of money on the side. Seeing as how I'm an evil capitalist, and all.

I'll fight for ideals. Long as it meets my personal best interest, and there's something in it for me.

I much prefer to fight for just a handful of principles, not ideals.

Ideals are unattainable.

Principles can be forever.

Originally posted by FarArcher

I'll fight for ideals. Long as it meets my personal best interest, and there's something in it for me.

You know, I really can't fault you for that. You bring up something interesting there, though. Motivations are rarely so one dimensional as some would have us believe. Folks would have us believe that these wars are ONLY for this or for that (the usual claim is oil or drugs - go figure), or "personal enrichment", or whatever the demon of the day is.

Fact is, even in individuals, motives are seldom so focused and one dimensional. How much more so, a nation of individuals?

I much prefer to fight for just a handful of principles, not ideals.

Ideals are unattainable.

Principles can be forever.

I'm with you here, but I'm willing to bet there are those unable to differentiate between "ideals" and "principles".

I'm pretty jaded these days as pertains to "ideals", but I still have my principles. I just tend to leave "ideals" for younger folks.... and of course politicians!

reply to post by nenothtu

I'm pretty jaded these days as pertains to "ideals", but I still have my principles. I just tend to leave "ideals" for younger folks.... and of course politicians!

People may enlist based on principles or sometimes ideals but then they are TOLD where to fight and as you are probably aware, refusing to comply based on ideals or principles is not an option..

If you have the ability to choose your fights then you are lucky...

reply to post by nenothtu

Just when things were looking grim for the Americans in the South against the British, a Major Ferguson made the statement that when he cleaned up a few known in the east, he was going over the mountains and take care of the farms of those there.

I use this to illustrate one of my core principles.

I'll go fight elsewhere, and I'll go hunt down those who would bring battle to me at my home, with ruthless execution, just to keep them away from my front yard, which severely limits my freedom of movement.

Apparently the "overmountain" men felt the same way, packed up their basics and possibles, and went looking for this Major who threatened them and their homes. They found him at King's Mountain.

Most of these frontiersmen and patriots didn't have a whole lot of ideals.

But they had principles running out their ***es.

Originally posted by FarArcher
I'll go fight elsewhere, and I'll go hunt down those who would bring battle to me at my home, with ruthless execution, just to keep them away from my front yard, which severely limits my freedom of movement.

"Don't tread on me"

I would engage my enemies without ruthlessness, but with respect of their own abilities. This doesn't mean I wouldn't be efficient at engaging them... but I would also speak to them at the same time, or at least my enemies who are capable of intelligent conversation with an enemy. If you make your own principals clear to your enemy, then some level of understanding could be achieved, avoiding much more conflict.

I understand that ideology and principals are different things... But I see ideology as being a set of principals that an organization, people or country can adopt and pursue. Without dominating ideals, then we wouldn't have organization on mass scales. It would still be like the west with cowboys dueling on the street to see which one has a stronger conviction.

If nations would send their leaders to duel with the leaders of their enemies, then everything would be different. But individual principals have little to do with the bigger picture anymore.

When I think about the soldiers of ideals, special forces and intelligence come to mind. They are the ones who have the highest understanding of all sides in a conflict. Regardless of their principals, they will kill without remorse for their own country, and not in a blind matter either.

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I'm pretty jaded these days as pertains to "ideals", but I still have my principles. I just tend to leave "ideals" for younger folks.... and of course politicians!

People may enlist based on principles or sometimes ideals but then they are TOLD where to fight and as you are probably aware, refusing to comply based on ideals or principles is not an option..

If you have the ability to choose your fights then you are lucky...

That's where I stand in picking my battles, but it's not always so simple, unless one is independently wealthy, and can pursue those fights wherever they take him. Otherwise, there has to be someone else, call him a "financier" if you like, or an "employer", who has goals if not precisely the same as yours, at least on the same battlefield, and not contradictory. I was never an "enlistee", I've always been a "security contractor". I know what you mean by being TOLD where to fight, I just haven't been in that precise boat. There is an option, or at least there was, for enlistees that could make a strong enough case for conscientious objections - they were told where to ride a desk, rather than where to fight. So those folks had an option of sorts, but you're right, not the general population of recruits.

In my case, however, objections were expressed with a "thanks but no thanks" as I picked up my stuff and left if I thought any particular job would compromise my own principles. That usually occurred in the interview part of the process, long before leaving or even taking the job, and only rarely from the ground at the sharp end if things turned out to be not as presented. As I mentioned earlier, the Iraq contract turned out to be such a situation for a friend of mine, who picked up his stuff and came home after a couple of months when the job didn't run as advertised. He was working for a certain agency which was contracted to the US government, and it was the government's failure to provide, rather than the agency he was employed with. Sometimes that's how it goes. Unless you're negotiating with the primary(in that case the US government), then the folks you ARE negotiating with (in that case the agency) can't really guarantee what the next party up the chain may or may not do.

There was one case where I gave my employer a heads-up of sorts. Called him up and said "you can either get me out of here, or I can start walking, but either way I ain't staying in this." That didn't endear me to him any, but it was what it was, and he knew I damned well meant it, because I am extremely loathe to go back on my word, whether there's money involved or not.

In those cases, the contractor CAN leave if he can demonstrate a breach of HIS contract, or if it's built in to the contract. Actually, he can leave anyhow if he's willing to take the hit in money or whatever other sanctions the contract specifies. Sometimes, there are situations where the contract can be damned, I'm just getting the hell out of there regardless.

Nowadays, I don't do anything other than local work, or at the most fairly short term contracts in another state, rather than going overseas. Plenty of work here without needing to test my reflexes there - and those reflexes aren't getting better with age, either! Reflexes aside, what I still retain is the knowledge of what it takes to get a particular job done, and folks are still willing to pay for that knowledge. The thing is, if it ever goes tits up here, other folks are gonna learn whole new ways to "pay" for that knowledge, too, and I don't think they'll be very happy with the payments.

I'm not alone, either. One of the side effects of these wars is to dump a whole new generation of experienced combat vets right into the population, right here, Push comes to shove, it'll likely be a whole new ballgame that no one seems to be able to foresee.

reply to post by FarArcher


Some of my ancestors were among those Overmountain Men at Kings Mountain, and that loud-mouthed Ferguson remains there to this day, underground. He said that nothing would budge him from that mountain, and he was right, as it turned out!

Yeah, I come from a long line of brawling malcontents. The Indian side of my ancestry weren't any calmer, either.

Another principle of mine is to not engage an enemy unless I'm certain of victory. Oh, I may not be able to overwhelm them all at once, but even if it's only one or two here and there, I won't engage unless I know I can bleed them out.

This supposed war on terrorism is taking so long because this very principle is not understood.

I stand amazed at the reputed military folks who don't fully understand this principle.

War/battle/conflict is not a punishment.

It's an eradication of your enemies.

Eradication will buy you a few hours of peace.

reply to post by FarArcher


Your so correct. Your a vet archer, you know what it takes to finish a war...but people would bitch and moan...if it was me i would put 40 nukes on china, 70 on russia, and bomb NK to sh.. if we were able to show the same ruthlessness the sand fleas show us, put a bullet in the head of anyone harboring a suspected insurgent, kill off every ex govt member they had, then wars would be over asap.

reply to post by nenothtu


My point is that you will not fight or kill for ideals. But then you state an ideal that you would fight and kill for. You are blatantly contradicting yourself.

Originally posted by MarineSniper12Kills
reply to post by FarArcher

 

Your so correct. Your a vet archer, you know what it takes to finish a war...but people would bitch and moan...if it was me i would put 40 nukes on china, 70 on russia, and bomb NK to sh.. if we were able to show the same ruthlessness the sand fleas show us, put a bullet in the head of anyone harboring a suspected insurgent, kill off every ex govt member they had, then wars would be over asap.

And this is why anyone who thinks veterans should run the country is an idiot. Anyone else you'd like to commit genocide on?

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


No contradiction at all. NOWHERE have I stated an "ideal" that I would die or kill for. People are not nebulous "ideals". They are not a philosophy that one would seek top force on the unwilling. They are flesh and blood, living beings, not a set of nebulous and dogmatic notions that prompt one to kill or be killed.

People are REAL, "ideals" are not.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by MarineSniper12Kills
reply to post by FarArcher

 

Your so correct. Your a vet archer, you know what it takes to finish a war...but people would bitch and moan...if it was me i would put 40 nukes on china, 70 on russia, and bomb NK to sh.. if we were able to show the same ruthlessness the sand fleas show us, put a bullet in the head of anyone harboring a suspected insurgent, kill off every ex govt member they had, then wars would be over asap.

And this is why anyone who thinks veterans should run the country is an idiot. Anyone else you'd like to commit genocide on?

How's that broad brush you're painting vets working out for you? Simply because one vet has a viewpoint you don't agree with, you automatically think we all have that viewpoint?

Originally posted by xavi1000

Originally posted by phatpackage
reply to post by Nephi1337

 

It's a war! Righty or Wrongly people die, get over it! It is sad, very sad that innocents die but it is a war & by no means detracts from the overall effort in Iraq!

What a sad post and is stared with 10 stars ,this is sad ,is not stupid ,WHAT WAR? this war?

posted on 30-12-2010 @ 09:20 this post
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Are we supposed to be thanking the troops for invading 2 sovereign countries?



Straight out in a nutshell Yes! Those countries deserved it! You are so disrespectful to the troops!


Is that the right they're fighting for? My God-given right to drive a gas hog? My God given right to think that my country owns all the oil it can get its hands on by hook or by crook (in this case, both)?



Again, Straight out in a nutshell Yes! If you love your country, everything in it & your lifestyle + freedom be grateful to the troops past & present! You are so ungrateful for all they have done for you!


Is THAT what the troops are doing? Were Iraq and Afghanistan threatening our consumables? Our free speech rights? No! They weren't doing a thing to us and we invaded them and have been killing them for the past 9 years.



This a load of Tin Foil hat wearing hogwash from someone who has no idea what the fight is about! Guess what its not up to me to educate you! Yes they deserved whatever they got! You just love to bring the mighty & brave troops down!


Being in the military does not make one a hero. Killing a million people does not make them a hero. I appreciate people's willingness to fight for their country, but these wars are illegitimate, serve no purpose and I cannot respect anyone who chooses to to be a part of them.



In the army defending your country & yes you are a hero! For the record I have just as little respect for people who "Slag off" the troops! Long live the Just & mighty coalition forces!

seems like you love this war, they deserve it? are you working for the Gov DisInfo section in pentagon or what`?

..

reply to post by MrAnnunaki

Hey, genius, if you'll go back a few posts, you see one of my "principles" that deals with those who would bring their crap here to me and mine.

Those turds that were hosted in Afghanistan brought their crap here to the US.

I don't have a clue where you've been for the last several years, but they brought it to us first, and we're returning the favor.

Tough ****.

Originally posted by FarArcher
reply to post by MrAnnunaki

 

Hey, genius, if you'll go back a few posts, you see one of my "principles" that deals with those who would bring their crap here to me and mine.

Those turds that were hosted in Afghanistan brought their crap here to the US.

I don't have a clue where you've been for the last several years, but they brought it to us first, and we're returning the favor.

Tough ****.

just like kids in kindergarden.

reply to post by MrAnnunaki

Well then, that really leaves you in the hole, doesn't it?

Originally posted by FarArcher
reply to post by MrAnnunaki

 

Hey, genius, if you'll go back a few posts, you see one of my "principles" that deals with those who would bring their crap here to me and mine.

Those turds that were hosted in Afghanistan brought their crap here to the US.

I don't have a clue where you've been for the last several years, but they brought it to us first, and we're returning the favor.

Tough ****.

Just a shame a lot of those that have died couldn't even show you where the US was on a map..
Many wouldn't even know the WTC existed...
Collateral damage I guess.