My view, to the surprise of no one, is that the best support of the troops is victory. Pursue that, and your support for our loyal brave soldiers, sailors, zoomies and jarheads, even our Coasties, is unmistakable.

Pretending to claim good feelings for our military while undermining a can't-be-wrong war against antidemocracy simply wraps fascist-symp villainy in a socially acceptable American flag -- and the people in uniform would hawk a lugie up on your shoes. Better not wear sandals for that occasion.

Thank you, Serp. I seem to be the Carborundum (tm) that makes 'em sore. UT told me I'm abrasive. He doesn't -- yet -- credit that should the opposition come up with a good idea, I'll listen. Until they do, traction they don't get -- with or without abrasives.

Converted him away from communism. He remained, nevertheless, a socialist.

Please, UG, don't start throwing Runnymede at me. Runnymede was not the beginning of limited monarchichal prerogatives. The Charter of Liberties was declared invalid before it ever took hold. It contained a few nice ideas and the beginnings, of a nascent sense amongst the Baronage, of themselves as a seperate set of interests from the King. It also contained a hell of a lot of individual grievances and claims which were entirely in keeping with the times. It was signed as a timebuying measure and failed to prevent the civil war which followed. It was lost and rediscovered centuries later and has become considered great only in retrospect.

America's cause is not Humanity's cause. No more than the British Empire's cause was Humanity's cause. There are many ways to forge democracies and America's democracy is not the only model nor America democracy's only purveyor.

Arrogant. Arrogant, arrogant fool to think you are the One People who can save the world. The One People who have the answer.

Corrected.

I'm an American too, and UG speaks for me with the same authority as he does when he speaks for Humanity. He's one guy--not America, not Humanity. Quit enabling his delusions of grandeur.

America's cause is democracy's cause, and humanity is best served by democracy -- the more of it the better. DanaC, you cannot show the thesis to be false. Quit living in denial. Where did you ever get the idea that I only believe in America's particular take on democratic social order? I don't; I've seen plenty of workable democracies elsewhere in the world.

It is that which is not democracy against which I set my face. If it takes arrogance to win out against the idiot brutalities of less-than-democracy, by all means pile on the arrogance and make humanity's worst temporal foe extinct. No one on God's green Earth need live any other way, and usually living some other way sucks to a great or a greater degree. I've seen non-democracy, I've seen fake-democracy, and neither are worth more than the powder to blow them up. Once they are blown up, how much misery will have fled the world?

Why tolerate a political order where only one man, the dictator, has any rights? Is or is that not a recipe for maximum misery?

I tell you, arrogance is far better than the supineness you're propounding as a virtue, DanaC. Quit your complaining and devote your energy to breaking fascists so they stay broken, impotent, emasculated, and eviscerated. Fascists in one or more of these conditions are good and beautiful fascists -- for they cannot get in the way of democracy, the enlightened social order.

Orwell is one of the people who made certain the English speaking world understands socialism and totalitarianism are bad ideas, to be rejected.

I'm afraid I must reject your pleas of "please." They are the worst advice I've seen this week. You don't want to turn into the kind of nutter tw is. I hadn't considered before today that you might risk that.

Bleh.

What the Berkeley CC did was absurd.

Hey, the Marines are our guys. We need them and they are accountable to us.

Blackwater..now that I'm not so sure of. As a private contractor, they are beholden only to their stockholders. The less Marines, the more Blackwaters.
http://www.blackwaterusa.com/job_fairs/default.asp

I'm not too sure if I want anyone from Berkley in my Army.

It's the aging Hippies that are in power. They don't necessarily represent the whole population, older, younger or non-activist.

I am with BigV, you don't speak for all Brits, at least we understand that.:cool:

Here's Berkeley's pinkos.

The "Travel to Exotic Lands. Meet Exciting and Unusual People -- And Kill Them" quote is a copy from 1960s anti-Vietnam posters.

Too bad the protesters haven't figured out that Marines aren't the ones that declare war. Their protest has no larger impact than annoying an office of Marines, and pissing a few people off that they are so stupid.

Again, why aren't they protesting at their state representatives office? That's the appropriate forum.

I have no problem with protesters. I do have a problem with protesters that take their frustration out on the wrong people.

They seem to be more effective at getting their message heard this way You are on the other side of the country, and you have heard their message. It's working.

Getting the message heard is not the same thing as bringing someone over to your way of thinking. My guess is that most people who have heard about this who aren't already strongly and resolutely anti-war were turned off by this form of protest.

the method of protest/argument DOES matter. Think it doesn't? Think about some of the points that Radar argues. If he were to drop the "I'm right and you're stupid approach" followed up with repeating the previous point with larger type, would you have such a strong gut reaction of disagreement with his posts?

I'd agree with that.

Phelps and the Westborough Baptist Church are good at getting their message heard too, but are converting no-one. These guys are the flip side of that same coin.

exactly. i grew up attending a baptist church. although it had issues, it was a good church with good people trying to follow new testament teachings. because of the asshatery of phelps and his ilk, "baptist" is a pretty big insult these days.

Yeah, I know that. I wasn't accusing 'America' or 'Americans' of arrogance. I was accusing Urbane Guerilla of arrogance in thinking that his Nation is somehow uniquely placed to resolve the world's ills and bring about enlightenment. I fully realise that his view is not shared by the majority of sane Americans and that he, in reality, speaks for nobody but himself. I was meeting him at his model. He keeps telling me America's cause is humanity's cause and I say he is an arrogant fool for believing that.

Fair enough. I may have over reacted to your comments. My bad.

Thats true from what I've heard. The most anti-war people I know don't protest because they just see it as a way to feel good about yourself and not actually change something.

The anti-war people turn to the Marine base because the president, vice-president and the nominee for the Republican party are not listening.

Protesting to the president wouldn't do anything anyways. It is still going to accomplish nothing besides making one feel good about oneself. There is not enough will to create a mass protest that could do something and these protests aren't going to open anyone's eyes about the issue.

I find it ironic that the marines die to give them the right to bitch err protest, yet they choose to protest the very people that gave them that right to protest.

When was the last time a marine died protecting our rights?
oh yeah, thats right, the 18th century. maaaaaybe 1945, if you count japan as threatening our rights.

that said, while I (for the most part) don't support military action in any situation that doesnt involve specific risk of invasion, and certain humanitarian/peacekeeping missions (and since what someone may view as a peacekeeping mission would be an invasion and occupation to someone else...), I harbor absolutely no animosity to the actual members of the military (the top brass, maybe not so much, but thats just me hating authority), coming from a military family myself and being very familiar with many, many military families and servicemembers.

Hate the organization, not the people... just like you should for any other group, movement, organization you dnt agree with.

Ibby, I have so much to say to that, but I think it will be said and taken much better by Reg Joe or Merc. All I can say is you have absolutely no perspective.

I do not believe, in the slightest, that any of our overseas involvement ever (except, like i said, maybe japan) has been in defense of my or any other american's freedom. Sure, maybe 1812, spanish-american wars... but they were on home soil, not overseas. Thats not to say there weren't good reasons for them - taking on germany in WWII, n. korea in the fifties, both of those were fairly okay - but certainly not lately by any means. Meanwhile, the military is the only organization completely free, legally speaking, to discriminate by gender, sexuality, any prettymuch whatever other factor they wish, as well as the only organization in the united states that completely deprives its members of their rights (effectively turning almost all rights into privileges, and since they can arrest you for disobeying an order and can order you to do anything that isnt illegal)...

but mostly i don't believe the argument that theyre 'defending our freedoms' because every single immediate threat i can see to my freedom is completely within the USA. Theocrats, neocons, right-wing hate groups... all actively trying to take away my rights, or keep me from gaining them. You can't say the same about anyone else in the world. Just cause fundamentalists and extremists and communists want to take away my rights, in a broad eventual sense, theyre not actively doing so. Theyre all a lot more occupied at home, for one thing.

Gee I wonder why? Lemme think on that a bit.

Its not our military, as anything but a deterrent. Which once more brings us back around to, i'm against the idea of using the military except in cases of actual invasion. Reduce it to a national guard force, not an international police force (or, alternatively, armed gang).
They arent doing it for the same reason we aren't forcibly making china a democracy. Its a pipe dream, a fantasy, not a realistic short-term goal.

and how exactly did our military become a deterrent?

Who was the last nation to invade switzerland?
oh, thats right, nobody.
whos the last person they invaded?
oh, thats right, nobody.

Wow. Classicman do you really believe there's an external threat to your way of life right now? Do you believe your freedoms are under threat from an external enemy?

That's scary. That's really scary.

All one needs to avoid military conflict is to become a mountainous nation (that's the hard part), and give the entire nation high-powered rifles and train them to be snipers (the easy part).

no there aren't any threats to us - 9/11 never really happened - just like we never landed on the moon.

A threat to our safety is not a threat to our freedom.
we should have a national guard to defend our security, like I said... but our military doesn't really help defend our freedom.

Given the responses up to post #93 it would be a complete waste of time trying to explain it. His mind is made up.

If you can justify militarism and invasion/occupation to me without sounding like UG... have at it. My mind is NEVER as made up as it sounds, trust me. I'm a teenager after all, right?

Further threats to our safety will lead to the full-on demand of further loss of freedoms.

You can take that to the bank. Another 9/11 style attack will become the test of our Constitution as we know it. I am not agreeing or disagreeing that changes would have to be made.

We failed the pop quiz we're gonna get rolled on the test.

Regarding the mountains; we had oceans at one point but I guess they dried up. I agree with Ibby's general tone.

i know i may be oversimplifying things a bit, but the gist of Ibram's thoughts are that if we just roll up the military and bring everyone back into our borders, then everyone will quit being mad at us and we'll have nothing to worry about?

Griff, you're old enough to know better. I'm not saying rampant imperialism is desireable, but isolationism is just as impractical.

I'm old enough to know that entrenched economic power trumps patriotism, if that's what you mean. I also know that the Republic failed, but I will mourn her.

The Republic that you're mourning has been failing since the day she was launched. Just like living is just the slow process of dying.

Every step of the way the republic has been moving closer to failure. A portion of every generation since the first has been certain that the failure was nearly complete. The country is changing but that is nothing new. It swings too far to the right then too far to the left and then...

So what are you going to do? Wall yourself off from the world because it doesn't fit neatly into the box you think it should? I doubt it. You'll keep getting up in the morning and doing your job. You'll raise your kids the best you can. You'll grow old, all the while being convinced that the republic is failing - and you'll be right. and wrong. the republic won't always be the world's largest superpower. that is inevitable. But once upon a time the average person in England couldn't conceive of a time when they wouldn't be at the center of global discussion. Times change and it seems to me that they are still living just fine there.

I, too, agree with the tone of Ibram's posts. But I read them differently. Not as a cry for a return to isolationism, but as a call for a more rational use of our (considerable) military might.

We **HAVE** awesome military power, and it is powerfully appealing to want to use the biggest hammer in the toolbox. But it is not always the best option. It is not always the most effective means of achieving a result.

Even when a goal is laudable, it may be a poor use of the military as well. They're soldiers and sailors and marines and airmen and coasties. As part of their job, they may know how to build a bridge or a school. They may know how to talk to a civilian suspect. They're clearly highly competent in their areas of speciality, and their training is excellent. But they're not nation builders. They're not even peace keepers. They're warriors, right? Isn't that what they train for? For war.

During this administration, they've been used and abused as a blunt heavy instrument. Not all our problems, problems we share with others can be bombed into submission.

Just because the hole will still be there when you stop isn't a reason to keep digging.Not invading countries isn't isolationism. There are all sorts of ways to engage in world affairs without killing.

I'll roll out at 5:45 no matter. The big problem for me is that we're destroying the opportunity to be a model of free and productive humanity just as huge science driven innovations create so much opportunity for humanity. Instead of being major players in the future, we muddle around in foreign lands subsidizing the hierarchy of the past with the investment dollars and blood needed for our children's futures. Here we are at the edge of a truly wonderous time for mankind, handing the ball off to totalitarians.

Thank you, V. You got it.

I too agree with that statement, but that is not at all what I took out of his original one. Sorry for any misinterpretation.

Neither did I.

I can't agree more. I think 2008 marks the year where the US spending on defense will surpass the spending of the rest of the world combined. We buy new billion dollar aircraft (Joint Strike Fighter) against an air threat that does not exist. We maintain bases in overseas regions that no longer require us to be there, and would frankly like us gone (although it would hurt the local economies to leave). I've always thought we should reduce our force and close most overseas bases. Mostly what we need is a few naval ports, and agreements to use a handful of airfields as required.

President Clinton reduced our forces. This alienated the military from the democrats, combined wth anti-military comments from other democrats. To make it worse, during Clinton's terms the military had more deployments as peace-keepers. Smaller force, more deployments, to areas in which the military's skills weren't in tune with what was needed. Military forces are trained to fight - not to keep peace. Sure, miltary have engineers that can dig wells and schools - but that's not the mission of the military. Protect and defend, not dig wells.

The US was never truly isolationist. If you look at the period when we were so called isolationists we were stilling fight small 'wars' in areas we had an economic interest in.

Marines can stay in Berkeley, without an apology from City Council
I also applaud this second refinement of the BCC's position.

I would disagree about the comments concerning the JSF or a huge reduction in overseas bases but I would agree about the comments concerning the Clinton administration. Having been on AD during that complete period we were marginalized and degraded. The times we prepared demonstrations and expected to have a chance to make a case for specific unit missions were met by 20-something's Congressional staffers and scorn by the Demoncratic administration of the time. Another reason not to vote for Ms. Clinton IMHO. We don't need to swing that far again. Our need to project military power world wide will not be reduced in the future. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water.

BigV nailed it, we are warriors not nation builders, but it does not mean that we cannot be compasionate and care for civilians caught in the crossfire of misdirected policy. We can and do that to a much greater degree than the majority of the public knows or understands. The information fed to the public by the press is packaged and sanitized by both the government censors and liberal supporters with agendas and an axe to grind, much of it is off the mark and does not tell the real story.

Even with an all volunteer military, we don't have legions of Rambos, frothing at the mouth, to kill. Well trained and capable, but mostly just decent people with a soft spot for puppies, children, and people that are hurting.

By all accounts, the plan is for 2,000-3,000 JSFs, each costing around $37-$48 million each, depending on the variant. I know our aircraft have to be replaced - we're still flying aircraft that were shot at in Vietnam allmost 40 years ago. However, there has to be a more cost effective way to replace them. Should we upgrade capabilities? Of course. Should we test technology? Of course! But we could buy newer versions of older models at a fraction of the cost to meet most of the need (and threat), and only have a small number of JSFs just to have the ability to push new technology to the limit, get lessons learned, and improve on it even more.

Overseas bases? We have thousands of people in Japan, ostensibly to keep Kim Jong-il in check, as well as China. There is a plan to relocate most of the force to Guam - which is great. The Japanese people don't want us there. Our forces in Germany were there to guard against the Communists. They are no longer a threat, and Germany is just a great place for soldiers and airmen to spend a few years drinking beer and going skiing in the Alps. The Germans would like us gone too, although they don't hate our presence as much as the Japanese. These are just the two largest concentrations. Close most overseas bases, and we can still project our power through long range bombers and Expeditionary Strike Groups. No permanent basing needed. And it would save a lot of money.

Would we appreciate Japan having a base in Hawaii, or the Germans in Colorado, or the Italians in Washington, or the Bahraini's in DC? The answer is no.

The key word in JSF is Joint. The reason it is an important platform is that all three services are going to use it. All the other countries are updating and we are required for security reasons to stay ahead. The JSF is the best way to go.

I agree that we could reduce our overseas presence in some places, but not in others. Germany is more than a place to vacation Europe from and drink beer. We have already closed numerous and redundent posts in Europe, as we should have, but the largest air fields, combined with the Medical Center are and have been extremely important. The ablity to project power from that location is very important. I could see how we could close some more bases in some areas of Europe.

Japan, Germany, and Italians really have no beef with us, Canada, or Mexico so they really would not want to be here any how.

and hope that others in the world aren't upgrading? Doesn't work that way.

Anyway, you've been in the military long enough to know that those cost projections are fluffed up by billions in BS R&D costs that escalate for no valid reason other than political BS.

Don't believe that? Read this about this guy.

Huge bucks and these aren't what I'd call serious weapon systems.

a) How does military service overseas help protect you from another 9/11?
b) Whilst damaging, in what way does such an attack actually threaten your country's survival/way of life/basic freedoms?

I understand that it was a watershed moment, but the stark reality is that in terms of actual loss of life it was very little compared to what many countries deal with on a day-to-day basis. It took what? six or seven years to plan? A major operation, yet managed to do little more than scratch America's surface.

In terms of real threat to your nation there isn't one unless it comes via a nuclear strike and having troops stationed across the Middle East is hardly going to prevent that.

The idea that you are under threat from, at war with, a great and terrible enemy is a lie. It's been sold to you on the back of 9/11 just as surely as you were sold reds under the beds in a previous generation. Duck and cover everyone. Stay vigilant.

And, no this isn't just about Americans. We're being sold the same bullshit over here. A couple of buses get blown up and suddenly that's justifcation for all sorts of changes to our legal system that'd have us shuddering in disgust under 'normal' circumstances.

By hunting the people who want to make us go away and killing them.

And how is it that the terrorists, al-Qaeda et al, aren't using the war, the Iraq War, as real-world training, like the Chechyans are using the war vs Russia as real-world training?

But the thing is, they dont want us to 'go away', they want us to leave their countries. They want us to go home, and get out of their 'holy land'. A military force overseas only help recruit to their cause. They dont want us all dead, they dont want us to leave america and let them take over, they dont want to impose sharia law on us, as anything more than hopeless pipe dreams, the same way we want everyone to have a democracy and do what we say.
Theofascism, islamic or otherwise, is obviously a threat to the freedom of it citizens, and therefore to freedom worldwide, but its one for us to deal with by encouraging revolution and sanctions to undermine the power of the government.

Get back to me on the Wahhabist philosophy and let me know some more about that.