Would you go?

  • Thread starter milefile
  • 76 comments
  • 1,981 views
10,832
I used to lament the old days of America. I'd look through my grandparents photos from the WWII era, and think about how they came home from the war, victorious, settled down and started their families in the late forties, like so many did, and felt proud to be American and to have defeated Japanese and German tyranny and agression. I thought that there was nothing worth fighting for anymore, and I watched as America became decadent, complacent, and more and more Socialistic. I was too young to understand the Cold War and Communism as I do now, after it's end. I even leaned far to the left, when I was a student. I remember one instance in particular, which serves as an example to me to this day. I was poor, as most students are, and my phone had been turned off for non-payment. I complained and whined about how unfair it was that me, a philosophy major, a thinking person, had to be inconvenienced with such plebian minutia like paying bills. I believed it was unjust and that my government should provide things like that for me. I theorized that telephone service was a need, and because of that, no building should be constructed without working phone service; no person should be deprived of a telephone because eveybody needs one. Surely a rich and powerful country like America could provide for the needs of it's citizens. My phone remained off for a month or more while I complained and spent my limited resources on CD's, unecessary clothes, expensive food, girls, and pot.

When George Bush Sr. invaded Iraq I was fully ready to leave the country. I didn't know that Canada sends draft dodgers right back where they came from nowadays, but the principle was still there. I had no comprehension of the necessity of that war. I was too busy reading lofty books and patting myself on the back for being so smart. How could I dirty myself with yucky things like politics international affairs?

Then I started supporting myself. I got married and realized I had a responsibility to another person to make sure the phone stayed on, that the rent was paid, then the mortgage. I learned that my actions directly translate into how my future plays out, that chance plays a role, but that self-determination plays a more important role. I learned that deciding what I want or need, setting goals to achieve those things, planning for it and working on that plan will get me what I decided I must have. I learned that I am not entitled to anything but the opportunity to work for what I want. I learned that when I chose, planned, worked, and achieved I felt a sense of acomplishment which I wanted to repeat, and that if I did repeat this basic system of work and achievement I would have a good, comfortable life chosen and built by me, for me, and now for my family, too. I remembered how I used to think I shouldn't have to bothered with it, that I was simply entitled to everything because I existed, as if that meant anything to anyone but me. I contributed nothing and expected everything. Some will say that Socialism is government ownership of industry. I guess that is one symptom of it's extreme, and I'd call it Communism. But at it's core it is the sense of entitlement that makes people expect something for nothing, that it is "fair" to foceably diminish one to enhance another. I was poor. I made it without a shred of government assistance other than it's original, essential promise: to preserve a nation where everybody has the opportunity to succeed. We do not need liberal institutions to feed a bloated sense of entitlement. We need goals. We need to work hard.

The most fundemental goal we need to keep alive is to protect, preserve, and enhance the promise of America. Without that everything else is impossible.

On September the Eleventh, 2001, I was in shock, and that shock lasted a long time. I couldn't believe what I saw. I couldn't believe how many people died, and I coudn't believe how anyone could be so malevolent. I did not ask myself, "what did we do to deserve this?" I knew... we did not deserve it, despite the fact that I'd not had any first hand experience of such pure evil (and evil is what it is). I realized, over time, that although I'd been redeemed from a bitter life of unfulfilled whining and arrogant entitlement, my complacency had remained mostly unchanged. I took the great promise of America for granted. I assumed it was invincible. And it might be, but what must be done in order for this to remain true is hard, and I'd rather not have to think about it. I'd prefer a world where freedom required no wars, a world where nobody has to protect anything. But there are bad people who want to kill and hurt, who are pleased with suffering. America has to protect itself. This responsibility extends beyond our borders insofar as any threat has the potential to extend within them.

Institutions like like the UN, the World Court, and the IMF, however well intentioned, do not take into the consideration the promise of America, which is unique in the world. They do not take into consideration America's singular purpose: let freedom be. America did not create freedom, it only lets it be. Freedom only has meaning at an individual level. Countries are not free, individuals are. When we say "free country" we mean "where individuals live free". Thanks to America, there are more countries where this is the case than ever before. And there will be more. America will not yield to violence, but will overcome it the only way it can be overcome: greater violence. We are capable and willing.

The greatest threat to America right now is not Al Qaeda, or Saddam, or even Iran or North Korea... it is from within. It is Michael Moore, John Kerry, liberal thinking. It is the desire to meld America with other countries, the willingness to sacrifice America's promise for a false sense of safety in numbers. It is the willingness to coddle other government's corruption in order to justify our own. It is belief that free-lunch will purge violence and depravation from the world. It is an unwillingness to protect and defend America. It is the belief that America should apologize for succeeding, that we should be ashamed of our advantage. It is the fact that so many Americans can't remember what the promise of America is, if they ever knew at all. It is any desire to silence a fellow American no matter how strongly they may disagree. Even those who are wrong have the right to be so.

If I was drafted I would willingly go. If I had no son I would've volunteered already. My complacency is gone. I have become a Patriot. I love America and any hatred of it merely enhances this fact. I look at my son and know that to die for America is to die for his future, one free individual whom I brought into this world.
 
As much as I love living in Canada, I wouldn't even consider military service unless it was contractual IT work or something similar. The primary reason for my standpoint is because more than likely, any war that comes up in the next 15 years will be something I won't support at all - ie, invasion and now occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. I don't want to be part of anything to do with the "accidental" bombings of cities and villages.

bleh, can't say this the way I want to say it. I'll try again later tonight after I finish my midterms
 
Nice speech, but would you be at all surprised if it was very similar to farewell letters by suicide bombers? Freedom is a great good, but the desperate measures you're willing to undertake to protect it and guarantee it for your son are both and in similar combination the cause for many infractions of other people's freedom. Terrorists are those that have found or chosen to find no other way than violence and instilling fear to achieve their goals. You're showing to be very willing to do the same.

Your great nationalist freedom speech bites itself in the tail.

The promise of America, which is unique in the world. [snip ...] Thanks to America, there are more countries where this is the case than ever before.

I'm willing to argue whether or not we have guaranteed more freedom for our individuals in our country (which I personally think we have). I'm even willing to argue whether you understand the concept of freedom at all. The Promise of America, it is a nice find, but how you relate them to the UN, The World Court, and the IMF is beyond me. I guess that the Promise of America lately has come to mean that the US will guarantee itself and itself alone the freedom to do whatever it likes. You make a travesty of the goals and the aftermath of the WWII, from which not only people who felt good about themselves returned, but also very many broken, traumatised, dismemembered, or not at all.

You forget that at that point in time, the Marshall plan was probably one of the largest wellfare schemes the US have ever undertaken, and yet now the mere concept of giving something without directly expecting something in return (at least directly, the end goal was the restoration of the world economy, a goal beneficial to all) are elusive to you. You are not learning from history, and you are not honoring it. Although you have learnt some lessons on responsibility, you fail to look far enough ahead or even want to look far enough ahead to be able to understand how your sons interests will be best served in the near and distant future.

(but at least you have one, of which I'm admittedly envious)
 
Very well written Milefile.

I would obviously go if it were a decision between that and prison. I would also obviously go if I thought I would die or lose my freedom otherwise. It is my belief that I am best suited for a life in the thinking world – rather than the fighting world. I believe I can best serve my species with my mind rather than my muscles or agility.

I might be able to contribute a substantial amount to the military were I to be put in a command role. I think I could allocate resources and identify vulnerabilities well, but I don’t think I’d last long as a soldier engaged in combat.

I’m a young, fit individual with good eyesight and bad feet. I think I could physically accomplish the job if I were to train well enough for it, but I believe I have more to offer.

We have a volunteer army for a reason. Some people are extremely well suited for life as a soldier. One of my siblings is such a person and is currently in the Army and will ship abroad soon. Such people are a special breed of person and they have an important role.

The only fair way to fight a war is to recruit people who actively want to fill that role.

There are plenty of roles I would be adept at serving in the military, but so long as it is not required of me, I will play the role I have chosen for myself. Were the country greatly threatened – to the point where we needed every person possible to defend it… I would be there. But the threat would need to be greater than the current threat of terrorism – it would need to be more like communism.
 
and yet now the mere concept of giving something without directly expecting something in return... are elusive to you

How ironic that you say this when it is in effect what his post was all about.
 
here's a question about the Draft. It's forced military service, right? What right does the military have over civilians in the first place to get them into service? Also, when they force you to serve in the military, what if you underperform as a form of protest? What do they do then? I find this to be a MAJOR violation of the fundamental freedoms that we are promised as Americans/Canadians.

Then there's the people who refuse to fight. They're put to military duties at home. That's still supporting the military which, many people would obviously be against. How does that work out? Canada is an EXTREMELY diverse country with people of cultures all over the world - not everyone would believe in fighting. Especially considering that more than likely people would be forced to fight against their own country people and possibly even family.

Aaand, you have the moral thing of killing people of your own religion because so far, America has only been targeting muslim countries with their whole "war on terrorism". Would someone be forced to fight even if it went against their religious beliefs (that being that we're not supposed to injure/kill other muslims)?
 
danoff
How ironic that you say this when it is in effect what his post was all about.

Really? That's not what I read. I read it to be mostly exactly about getting something in return directly, rather than just getting something. Maybe I am a bit harsh in that, but it's not far off.
 
Really? That's not what I read. I read it to be mostly exactly about getting something in return directly, rather than just getting something. Maybe I am a bit harsh in that, but it's not far off.

He was talking about dieing for his sons future and the freedom of others. He was talking about being allowed to work for his future rather than having other people pay for it. Seems pretty far off from what you were claiming to me.
 
milefile, I think your threads about the draft and personally going to war and all that jazz are a little over reactive. The United States has been sending soldiers over-seas for decades. It just seems like a bigger deal now because the media is all over the 'war on terror' due to election time.
 
Arwin
Nice speech, but would you be at all surprised if it was very similar to farewell letters by suicide bombers?
Not in the slightest. I have never questioned their commitment.
Freedom is a great good, but the desperate measures you're willing to undertake to protect it and guarantee it for your son are both and in similar combination the cause for many infractions of other people's freedom.
I don't see it. Will you give an example?
Terrorists are those that have found or chosen to find no other way than violence and instilling fear to achieve their goals. You're showing to be very willing to do the same.
Yes. To them. They've, made it necessary.
Your great nationalist freedom speech bites itself in the tail.
No it doesn't. That was weak. Is that the best you can come up with? I find it difficult to even justify the expenditure of typing energy to show you why.
I guess that the Promise of America lately has come to mean that the US will guarantee itself and itself alone the freedom to do whatever it likes. You make a travesty of the goals and the aftermath of the WWII, from which not only people who felt good about themselves returned, but also very many broken, traumatised, dismemembered, or not at all.
The price of freedom. The good life North America and Europe enjoy today is all due to the outcome of WWII. I really don't see how I made a travesty of it.

Some places are more free than others.
You forget that at that point in time, the Marshall plan was probably one of the largest wellfare schemes the US have ever undertaken, and yet now the mere concept of giving something without directly expecting something in return (at least directly, the end goal was the restoration of the world economy, a goal beneficial to all) are elusive to you.
Not elusive. Impossible.
You are not learning from history, and you are not honoring it. Although you have learnt some lessons on responsibility, you fail to look far enough ahead or even want to look far enough ahead to be able to understand how your sons interests will be best served in the near and distant future.
Then tell me how they will be.
 
LoudMusic
milefile, I think your threads about the draft and personally going to war and all that jazz are a little over reactive. The United States has been sending soldiers over-seas for decades. It just seems like a bigger deal now because the media is all over the 'war on terror' due to election time.

Point taken. I'm not surprised by that. I take some things seriously. Others I don't. The War on Terror is very serious to me and it's hard for me to understand how so many people don't see it. It's impossible for me to understand it as a "nuisance". This war is, at bottom, the most important war yet. That's what I think. And it has only just begun.

That and it's just personally a big deal for me to have changed my mind about these things over time. I never thought I would've been a patriot ten years ago. It started when I realized how many of my friends would criticize America incessantly. It didn't sit well with me after a while and I started to think "Well, if we're Americans, then why don't we do something about it?" At least that's when I started to care.

But really, to look at me you'd never know what a right-wing wacko I am. Ninety percent of the ime I keep my political views to myself.
 
Well I wouldn't be happy to attack a country for supporting Al Quada and for developing WMDs when there's no evidence of this to be found. I honestly believe you cannot attack a country over a suspicion. That's like shooting someone because you suspect he might harm you, finding out he didn't actually pose a threat, and then saying oh well he was a bastard anyway.

There were much better reasons for dealing with Saddam Hussein (sadist dictator). But that's a completely new and very risky area of international justice and a completely different discussion altogether (in that discussion I'd expect the words International Court and U.N. to feature frequently).

I will never gladly sacrifice my life. I love life. My mind works in such a way that I have to believe I have a chance of making it, but my powers of self-persuasion are such that I could probably convince myself that a nearly non-existant chance is still a chance and I'd take it.

But one example of what I would be willing to risk my life for, is when China would invade the US without provocation. Make no mistake about that milefile, I'd be there beside you protecting your wife and son.

Right now, he's best protected by showing that the U.S. is truly morally superior, and truly a promotor of freedom and justice, by solving problems rather than fighting symptoms.
 
Arwin
Well I wouldn't be happy to attack a country for supporting Al Quada and for developing WMDs when there's no evidence of this to be found. I honestly believe you cannot attack a country over a suspicion. That's like shooting someone because you suspect he might harm you, finding out he didn't actually pose a threat, and then saying oh well he was a bastard anyway.

So if someone pulls out a knife, states that they intend to stab you, you're supposed to let them stab you BEFORE you react? Awesome logic.

Right now, he's best protected by showing that the U.S. is truly morally superior, and truly a promotor of freedom and justice, by solving problems rather than fighting symptoms.

So what you're saying is, we should say "Please Mr. Terrorist man, don't attack us anymore" and hope they're swayed by our politeness?

To answer the topic question, no, I couldn't go. I've got severe back problems that would prevent me from being allowed, but I'd probably do it if I could.
 
Ghost C
So if someone pulls out a knife, states that they intend to stab you, you're supposed to let them stab you BEFORE you react? Awesome logic.

So what you're saying is, we should say "Please Mr. Terrorist man, don't attack us anymore" and hope they're swayed by our politeness?

To answer the topic question, no, I couldn't go. I've got severe back problems that would prevent me from being allowed, but I'd probably do it if I could.

You saw a knife? There were terrorists in Iraq? (I mean, I know they're there now ... )

I guess that separate reality article is really true.

Other than that though, best of luck with your back!
 
I know this might piss off a few people, as my comments have before; but I respect self-defence rather self-offence. I'm not going to go into huge detail, but I was rather moved by 9-11 because my nation was under attack. I would have gladly fought had I been asked, or not getting ready to marry my future wife.

However, I've never seen Iraq as much of a threat to our nation, and I see US (and other non-neighboring nations) involvement as an offencive attack. I don't agree with that one bit, as we have not been provoked by Iraq at any time since the Gulf War. Yes, many people in Iraq have suffered during Saddam's regime, but we are not done completing one battle before we have begun another.

Historically, it's never been wise to fight too many battles at once, unless your enemy has been even spread out even more than you have. I'm not an America-hater, but I do think it's not a wise move on the part of the United States, even if we're trying avoid a pre-emptive strike.

In short, I approve of self-defence, not self-interest and self-offence. I am quite aware of the risks and prepared to defend my family and nation, but a wise man and a wise nation makes these choices after careful thought.
 
No one really argues that Iraq did not support terrorist. The only argument they can make is that there is no concrete evidence that Iraq supported the 9/ 11 attack. The argument is usually couched in a way that implies that Iraq is somehow inocent of supporting terrorist.
You have to be delusional in the extreme to believe it. Or you do not believe that the scum they supported are terrorist.
 
Great post milefile - you have a great knack for writing exactly what you are feeling in a very eloquent manner.

Two things that sprang to mind when reading this thread:

1) Anything questioning the ability of the USA to do whatever it wants is attacked.
2) Maybe I am being naive, but can someone explain to me how the freedom of the US is being "attacked" by terrorist groups? You make it sound like a military invasion is imminent when in truth the threat is a sinister, yet small scale enemy; capable of inflicting deadly attacks yes, but hardly capable of quashing US freedom.
 
Freedom is being attacked when people are too afraid to get on an airliner in fear of it going through a building.
 
Ok, fair enough.

But then how does invading/liberating Iraq achieve that? That leaves two handfuls of other countries that are equally capable of hiding terrorists.

Then by the same token, Americans should have no issue with what Israel is doing to prevent suicide bombings?
 
Operation Iraqi Freedom has nothing to do with 9/11 and was not retaliation for it. Saddam was supporting terrorism (same with Afghanistan), developing illegal Weapons of Mass Destruction, and disobeying the United Nations. That was the reasoning for liberating Iraq.

Supporting terrorism will deny freedom not only to Americans, but to the whole world.

I have no problem with Israel's Security Wall (I assume that is what you're referring to). It has reduced terror attacks by a great margin.
 
Viper Zero
Operation Iraqi Freedom has nothing to do with 9/11 and was not retaliation for it.

Ties with Al Quaeda and the fear that Iraq would be able to supply them with WMDs was THE main reason for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

I have no problem with Israel's Security Wall (I assume that is what you're referring to). It has reduced terror attacks by a great margin.

When the Dutch were occupied by the Germans in WW2, some of us were also terrorists, and many risked and gave their lives in the process. The Germans did some horrible things to us to prevent such attacks, but hey, we were terrorists, so we had it coming right?

I mean *everything* is allowed when it comes to fighting terrorists, including throwing overboard human rights, geneva conventions, disowning land, murdering, bombing, invading countries and so on. :dopey:
 
Arwin
Ties with Al Quaeda and the fear that Iraq would be able to supply them with WMDs was THE main reason for Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Yet, not the only reason.

When the Dutch were occupied by the Germans in WW2, some of us were also terrorists, and many risked and gave their lives in the process. The Germans did some horrible things to us to prevent such attacks, but hey, we were terrorists, so we had it coming right?
This is the same reasoning as the reasoning that the United States should be disarmed of it's WMD.

If you want to call yourselves "terrorists"? Go right ahead.
 
So if I understand you correctly, America should invade countries that pose a terrorist threat to its freedom?
 
I believe so.

Although, all alternatives to invading must be exhausted. As with Iraq, Saddam was given one last chance with resolution 1441 to disarm, he refused.

Are you going to wait for another 767 to go through building or are you going to make sure that the terrorist who would have flown the airliner never sees the light of day?
 
Americas 'War against terrorism' is exactly the same as the 'cold war'. Its basically a war of fear against its own citizens - scare your people into beliving there is a real threat against their lives and way of lives, and they will follow what ever the govenment wants to do. Suprise, suprise its the same individuals who 'started' the cold war (cheney and rumsfeld) who are now placing fear into the hearts and wallets of their citizens once again. Remember the Taliban and Saddam were placed in their respective countries by the US govenment in the first place and Iraq is now a giant playground and recruitment centre for terrorism.
 
Viper Zero
I believe so.
Although, all alternatives to invading must be exhausted. As with Iraq, Saddam was given one last chance with resolution 1441 to disarm, he refused.

So again we see the use of a UN resolution to start a war that is not sanctioned by the UN.

Are you going to wait for another 767 to go through building or are you going to make sure that the terrorist who would have flown the airliner never sees the light of day?

I highly doubt that the invasion of Iraq has helped a lot here. I'm sure that Israel now saying 'look the US does it too' doesn't help either. Fuel on the fire and the terrorists are achieving their goals.
 
The Cold War was a 'fake' war, imagined to create fear? I guess 20,000 nuclear warheads wouldn't scare anyone.

Hey, Mr. Terrorist. It's the Great Infidels calling again. If we stop blowing you up into next week, can you stop beheading innocent people? Great! Talk to you soon!

:rolleyes:
 
Back