If You Won't Stand Behind The Troops . . .

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Maggie' date='14 November 2009 - 01:16 AM' timestamp='1258175806' post='2002512']
Doing what is necessary to become a convict is usually sinful. Military service is NOT, in the eyes of the Church, a sin or in any way approaching a sin. In fact if it is a duty carried out properly, it is a positive good, as the Catechism explicitly states. When an officer serves poorly, failing in his duty to protect human dignity and minimize the loss of life, that's when the potential for sin begins. John Paul II did in fact speak out very strongly against the war in Iraq (not so much the war in Afghanistan) and I happen to agree with him. However he certainly did not advise anyone in any army that serving there would be a sin. I believe only one bishop in the entire world levied the penalty of interdiction on those of their flock who fought in Iraq (an Eastern Catholic bishop here in OH I think). Anyway, the argument could be made that only those involved in the first invading wave faced a moral problem, since those who have gone there since were charged mostly with peace keeping and restoring infrastructure etc, which the extremists choose to classify as "occupation" but which the Church has no problem with whatsoever.
[/quote]

You say that whether or not the invasion was justified, the presence of thousands of armed troops is acceptable because they are "peace keeping and restoring infrastructure." What gives politicians, elected by individuals in the United State, the moral right to send their soldiers thousands of miles away to "keep the peace?" (After it created a "democratic" government.)

The fact is, to a great extent, civilians, and to a much lesser extent, soldiers, are apparently still laboring under the idea that the soldiers are there to "protect American freedom."

~Sternhauser

[aalpha1989]

[quote name='Maggie' date='13 November 2009 - 01:00 PM' timestamp='1258135250' post='2002184']
Military service is an occasion of sin? Someone better tell the Archbishop of the Military ordinate. And the Pope who appointed him. This is why pacifism will mostly likely always be a fringe position in the Church: they just can't wrap their minds around the concept that while it's OK for them to feel that way and to follow their conscience in this regard, they can't legitimately cast judgment on other's choices. It is NOT the Church's teaching that military service is sinful or an occasion of sin or that you can not be a model Catholic while bearing arms. And it is not OK to represent that it is.
[/quote]


Sternhauser is not a pacifist, he merely disagrees with the idea of a standing army.

[quote name='MIkolbe' date='13 November 2009 - 05:01 PM' timestamp='1258149700' post='2002339']
Ich bin nicht beurteilen ihre Herzen, die ohne Zweifel sind gut gemeint. Ich bin sicher nicht der Beurteilung ihrer Seele. Ich beurteile die Klugheit und die offensichtlichen Ergebnisse ihrer Entscheidung, sich in den Dienst der gewalttätigen Politik ausüben. Einige Entscheidungen nicht eingehalten werden können, aber ihre edlen Absichten. Sternhauser ~

私は間違いなくもされ、その心は、善意の判断ではない。私は確かに自分の魂を判断していない。私は、慎重さや意思決定の政治家の暴力的なサービスで自分自身をするのは、マニフェスト結果を判断します。いくつかの選択肢を尊重することはできませんしかし、貴族たちの意図。〜Sternhauser


وأنا لا أحكم على قلوبهم ، والتي هي بلا شك حسنة النية. وبالتأكيد أنا لا أحكم على أرواحهم. أنا قاض والحذر واضحا من نتائج قرارهم لوضع أنفسهم في خدمة عنيفة من السياسيين وبعض الخيارات لا يمكن أن تكون محترمة ، ولكن النبيلة نيتهم. ~ Sternhauser



somehow translating that in german, japanese and arabic seemed poignant....

God Bless our men and women who serve.
[/quote]

That German was really really bad.

[quote name='Lilllabettt' date='13 November 2009 - 05:31 PM' timestamp='1258151506' post='2002357']
This anarchy thing sounds like a great way to get out of taking responsibility for stuff. You get all the benefits of living in a state controlled society without having to "serve" it. Nice deal.

You are in a morally compromising position though ... since you have opted not to live "off the grid" in Montana somewhere, and have instead freely chosen to suckle at the state's teat.

Free rides to Afghanistan leaving with the Marines in a month or so.
[/quote]

Sternhauser is also not an anarchist.

[quote name='Paladin D' date='13 November 2009 - 10:53 PM' timestamp='1258170785' post='2002480']
Correct me if I misread your statement, but are you lumping us (those that wear the uniform) together with criminals?




[url="http://www.catholicmil.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1532:veterans-day-message-from-fr-corapi&catid=54:other&Itemid=171"]Veterans Day Message from Fr. Corapi [/url]

[/quote]

I love Father Corapi, but in his exercise of prudence he is sometimes wrong.




I do not agree with Sternhauser on many things he has said, but I do think most of you are letting your emotions block your intellect. Just sayin'...
Sternhauser is certainly right in asserting that the current war is an unjust one. The last two popes were both of the same opinion.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='picchick' date='14 November 2009 - 05:17 PM' timestamp='1258233460' post='2002821']
Now you are changing the subject. This is not what you started your thread with. [/quote]

That is not what I started my thread with. It is a response to this statement: "You projected however, that we are killing scores of innocent people. We aren't doing it, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are."

His response ties into my original point that violent action undertaken at the behest of politicians (do you deny that is what military service ultimately is? Or do you believe that 'the majority,' a fine judge of what is right and just in its own right, sends them to kill on their behalf?) If you do not support a war, how can you support those who prosecute it?

[quote]What kind of pointed question is that? I am not going to answer for Paladin but I would not answer your stupid question. If he says "No" then you will question his joining the military. If he says, "Yes" he is likewise condemned by your judgement.[/quote]

It is a very pointed question. Of course you wouldn't answer the question. If I held your position, I would not try to answer it, either.

[quote]Stop judging the troops, Sternhauser. Just stop. You can judge the war the motives of the war, the politicians but just stop judging the troops.[/quote]

The troops trust the motivations of the politicians. State troops fight because politicians tell them to fight, and would not fight in any particular places unless politicians told them to. Throughout human history, the motives of politicians have almost always been wholly contradictory to any just reasons for war. Therefore, trusting the judgment of politicians about who it is moral to kill is a failing. How culpable are they for this failing? I do not care. I care that people recognize it as a failing, and stop trying to cover the ugly truth of why wars are fought with the yellow smiley face mask of "protecting American freedom."

"Well, they'll decide for themselves who it is just to kill when they get into war," you might object. No. They will not. Fallen human nature perennially dictates otherwise. They make their decision when they first put themselves in the compromising position of becoming a link in a chain of command. In the heat of the moment, with a rifle in their sweaty hands, and a chain of command breathing hotly down their necks, the majority will do what they have been trained to do. They will kill. How many of the National Guardsmen refused to confiscate firearms from non-violent people in their own homes after Hurricane Katrina? The number is Zero. Look at the Milgram experiment, or the recent replication of the experiment. While some balked at points, all it took to convince 90% of the participants to knowingly give a lethal dose of electricity to a subject who merely answered questions incorrectly was a man in a uniform (a white lab coat, in this case) saying, "The experiment requires it. Proceed." Some did so with smiles on their faces.

[quote]
You cannot read the hearts of solidiers. You cannot know why the signed up or what caused them. You will never be able to understand what is in their heart and souls. [/quote]

I cannot read the hearts of soldiers. As it is, however, so many of them wear their hearts on their sleeves. In my interactions with many Catholics who joined the military, it is clear, as was spoken, that the main purpose in joining was "to kill hadjis," and "to separate body-soul composites."

I have not seen any of the calm sobriety which should be present when one makes the decision to join an institution of which the purpose is to kill. These are kids who grew up playing with stick guns and war-oriented video games. These are kids who literally said, "I saw the commercial with all the helicopters and guys in uniforms with guns, and it looked like the coolest job in the world." They joined for the reasons that most little boys join the military throughout history. They want to carry weapons, to be a part of something bigger than themselves, and do valorous deeds. These things are not bad in themselves. They are also not valid reasons to put oneself in the violent employ of politicians/the will of the majority. Nor is the carrot of a college education that recruiters dangle before them a good reason to sign up to kill people.

What I have witnessed in the demeanor and attitude of young men in the military are the demeanor and attitude of little boys who feel tough and want to be important and kill bad guys. And, like little boys, if there aren't any real bad guys to kill, they'll make some up in their imaginations. Unfortunately, in the real world, this leads to non-threatening people getting killed. You don't go into a tiger's cage, then attack it and say, "I had to kill it. It tried to attack me." The intention of protecting people does not justify the fact that one is not protecting others by one's actions.

I know they do not perceive themselves in this way. They do not believe that they joined the military because it was "cool." But it is human nature to do so. I know those soldiers. I know what many of them believe, because they've told me just what they believe. They told me why they joined. If confronted on why they believe what they do, or how they justify their actions, they would doubtless fall back on illogical arguments based on the "nobility," of their actions, just as a gay couple falls back on "we love each other" as a justification for homosexual behavior.

Have you watched the first two episodes of the remake of "V?" It does an outstanding job of portraying different human reactions to those who promise to bring peace. It shows their reactions to people with an unnatural amount of power. The writers understand human nature quite well. You would do well to watch that show, and to see the clear portrayal the motivations for why people do what they do.

[quote]Really the only people who can understand are fellow soldiers and families.[/quote]

Look at what you said. It is elitist, because we are talking about a logical issue, not an emotional issue, like how it feels to lose a child. If they are the only people who can understand, it is because their "understanding" is based on their subjective emotions, and they are incapable of using logic to properly express and defend their position. Is the military some form of gnostic knowledge? Is it like a faith-based religious conversion? Or can they defend their "understanding" with cold hard logic?

~Sternhauser

Edited November 15, 2009 by Sternhauser

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='15 November 2009 - 12:18 PM' timestamp='1258301917' post='2003240']
I cannot read the hearts of soldiers. As it is, however, so many of them wear their hearts on their sleeves. In my interactions with many Catholics who joined the military, it is clear, as was spoken, that the main purpose in joining was "to kill hadjis," and "to separate body-soul composites."
[/quote]

I haven't heard a single person ever say that was their reason for enlisting. By far the largest reason I have been given is money, which refers back to Didy's and Catherine's posts regarding financial necessity. I asked my husband and he had the same response, he has never ever heard someone say that their reason for enlisting was to kill.

[quote]
Look at what you said. It is elitist, because we are talking about a logical issue, not an emotional issue, like how it feels to lose a child. If they are the only people who can understand, it is because their "understanding" is based on their subjective emotions, and they are incapable of using logic to properly express and defend their position. Is the military some form of gnostic knowledge? Is it like a faith-based religious conversion? Or can they defend their "understanding" with cold hard logic?

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

It's not elitist. I could stand there and say "Man, that really smells of elderberries" to a guy with his legs cut off, or I could say "that's a crappy job" to a guy who collects garbage for a living but no matter how much I think about it I'm never going to fully understand what they are going through. Same with military service, you can never really understand what motivates soldiers to enlist or what their families go through unless you're in that position yourself. You can try to sort it out with logic and try to figure out the emotions behind it all day long. You can come to conclusions in your own mind, but they aren't always going to be accurate and that's not a matter of the other side being "overly emotional", it's a matter of fact. Even people who say "I would join but..." don't understand 100% because they have not been there. Empathy is not the same as understanding. You can't accurately "logic out" the answers when you don't know all the facts.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='13 November 2009 - 09:08 PM' timestamp='1258164494' post='2002433']


John Paul II condemned the Iraq war, saying it was not justifiable under the just war theory. That is something we should "never forget."

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Feel free to show where John Paul II condemned the war, then condemned the soldiers as murderers.

You can demonstrate the former but not the latter.

[picchick]

[quote name='aalpha1989' date='15 November 2009 - 10:55 AM' timestamp='1258300544' post='2003231']
Sternhauser is not a pacifist, he merely disagrees with the idea of a standing army.



That German was really really bad.



Sternhauser is also not an anarchist.



I love Father Corapi, but in his exercise of prudence he is sometimes wrong.




I do not agree with Sternhauser on many things he has said, but I do think most of you are letting your emotions block your intellect. Just sayin'...
Sternhauser is certainly right in asserting that the current war is an unjust one. The last two popes were both of the same opinion.
[/quote]

I disagree with you. Did you not read this thread from the beginning? He clearly stated that soldier's put themself in an occassion of sin. As a Catholic, we are to avoid that. So what of our Catholic soldiers? To Sternhauser, you cannot be a good Catholic and a soldier. As a soldier, our decision to join was not one of out reason but one out of emotion.

I have no emotion blocking my intellect. If Sternhauser were president for the last 80 years, we would not have gone to any war. Ask him.

I could care less about his dissent of the current war. I have heard so many opinions of lay people that it doesn't bother me. That is not what bothers me. What bothers me is his total complete disrespect of anyone in the military.

[Ave Maria Totus Tuus]

Mr. Sternhauser,

As someone who proudly wears the cloth of our nation, I want you to know that myself and my brethren in arms proudly defend your right to sit here on this forum and say whatever you want. I honorably defend your right to have your opinion, no matter how twisted some of your logic is here.

While I respect your right to an opinion, and by my service in the military would offer my blood to keep that right, I would like to ask you one thing before this thread continues. Please stop making judgements and assumptions about the military and "what we do" or "why we do it." As many have said already, you cannot comprehend this unless you are actually in this place. I don't care who you've talked to or who you know or what "cold hard logic" you try to use--you just don't get it unless you're living it.

Whatever you believe, it's an honor to serve you, sir.


Saint Mary, Star of the Sea, pray for us.

[picchick]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='15 November 2009 - 11:18 AM' timestamp='1258301917' post='2003240']
I cannot read the hearts of soldiers. As it is, however, so many of them wear their hearts on their sleeves. In my interactions with many Catholics who joined the military, it is clear, as was spoken, that the main purpose in joining was "to kill hadjis," and "to separate body-soul composites."

I have not seen any of the calm sobriety which should be present when one makes the decision to join an institution of which the purpose is to kill. These are kids who grew up playing with stick guns and war-oriented video games. These are kids who literally said, "I saw the commercial with all the helicopters and guys in uniforms with guns, and it looked like the coolest job in the world." They joined for the reasons that most little boys join the military throughout history. They want to carry weapons, to be a part of something bigger than themselves, and do valorous deeds. These things are not bad in themselves. They are also not valid reasons to put oneself in the violent employ of politicians/the will of the majority. Nor is the carrot of a college education that recruiters dangle before them a good reason to sign up to kill people.

What I have witnessed in the demeanor and attitude of young men in the military are the demeanor and attitude of little boys who feel tough and want to be important and kill bad guys. And, like little boys, if there aren't any real bad guys to kill, they'll make some up in their imaginations. Unfortunately, in the real world, this leads to non-threatening people getting killed. You don't go into a tiger's cage, then attack it and say, "I had to kill it. It tried to attack me." The intention of protecting people does not justify the fact that one is not protecting others by one's actions.

I know they do not perceive themselves in this way. They do not believe that they joined the military because it was "cool." But it is human nature to do so. I know those soldiers. I know what many of them believe, because they've told me just what they believe. They told me why they joined. If confronted on why they believe what they do, or how they justify their actions, they would doubtless fall back on illogical arguments based on the "nobility," of their actions, just as a gay couple falls back on "we love each other" as a justification for homosexual behavior.

Have you watched the first two episodes of the remake of "V?" It does an outstanding job of portraying different human reactions to those who promise to bring peace. It shows their reactions to people with an unnatural amount of power. The writers understand human nature quite well. You would do well to watch that show, and to see the clear portrayal the motivations for why people do what they do.
[/quote]
I know many people who are joining the military as well. Many. And most of them go for the benefits of education, money, the job they want (for example military police), the discipline, the structure. I have not heard one person say, "I joined to kill other people." Or any of the phrases you have said.

Why did you compare the actions of a soldier to the actions of a gay couple? They are totally completely opposite. Many times the soldier are following orders. You can argue whatever you want about the motive of the orders. A gay couple act freely and voluntarily.

[quote]
Look at what you said. It is elitist, because we are talking about a logical issue, not an emotional issue, like how it feels to lose a child. If they are the only people who can understand, it is because their "understanding" is based on their subjective emotions, and they are incapable of using logic to properly express and defend their position. Is the military some form of gnostic knowledge? Is it like a faith-based religious conversion? Or can they defend their "understanding" with cold hard logic?

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Yes. I can defend my motives with cold hard logic. I could tell you everything in my heart, mind and soul. Decisions are not only made of logic and reason but also with emotion. The two go hand in hand. But you will never understand. You will find every excuse in the book as to why I should not have joined. I know. I have delt with people like you on a smaller level that told me I could get the same experience in civilian life. No one will understand except those who are in the military or those who are vets. That is just the way it goes.

It is like saying, "I am Catholic, I go to Church, I believe a, b and c." If you say that to any person outside the Church they are not going to understand fully the logic or the emotion (because you cannot say that you are Catholic solely based off of logic) of your decision. And many will even find it illogical.

Elitist? Until you live the life, you will never understand.

On my Cancer floor where I work, I deal with so many deaths. I can never tell someone I know what you are going through. I can't. I don't know. I can UNDERSTAND but I can never know.

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='15 November 2009 - 11:39 AM' timestamp='1258299545' post='2003219']
You say that whether or not the invasion was justified, the presence of thousands of armed troops is acceptable because they are "peace keeping and restoring infrastructure." What gives politicians, elected by individuals in the United State, the moral right to send their soldiers thousands of miles away to "keep the peace?" (After it created a "democratic" government.)

The fact is, to a great extent, civilians, and to a much lesser extent, soldiers, are apparently still laboring under the idea that the soldiers are there to "protect American freedom."

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

I don't really know whether or not politicians have a moral right to do x y or z. I do know that sending people on peace-keeping or humanitarian ventures is in keeping with solidarity. It's not neccesarily constitutional, of course, but the constitution has nothing to do with morality. If we are sending our boys some place to repair roads, fix pipes, and protect people from bombs instead of blowing them up ourselves for a change, I am all for it. The Church does not have any problem with work of that nature.

I am of the opinion that if you break something you should do your best to fix it, which I think is our current situation in Iraq. We are responsible in large part for the current level of mayhem over there so I think saying "whoops, sorry about that, too big of a mess for us to help y'all with, good luck anyway" and making tracks is not the most moral or Christian thing to do. As far as I know the Pope does not have any issues with our currently being in Iraq to try to contain the violence. Wrong to invade, yes, wrong to stay and help, no. Search all you like but you'll never find anything from him that says "the Americans should leave now." Since we destroyed their earlier form of government, we are obligated to help them re-develop their systems. We chose democracy because we think it's the best way. I am not sure what alternative we should have persued? Install our choice of dictator, let the people choose a dictator, create a structure for religious rulers, find a king to crown? They have to have a government of some kind. We broke it, we bought it, it's ours. For the duration. At this point all we can do for them is our best. Which hopefully we are doing.

Edited November 15, 2009 by Maggie

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' date='15 November 2009 - 01:36 PM' timestamp='1258306573' post='2003258']
I haven't heard a single person ever say that was their reason for enlisting. By far the largest reason I have been given is money, which refers back to Didy's and Catherine's posts regarding financial necessity. I asked my husband and he had the same response, he has never ever heard someone say that their reason for enlisting was to kill.[/quote]

I have. They are joining an institution that kills, primarily motivated by money. What differentiates a United State soldier from a mercenary, if that is the case? That is not to say that being a mercenary is morally wrong. But it does raise the question, "Is money itself a good reason to kill other people?" And if it is not a good enough reason in itself, I ask again: do you really trust politicians to decide who you may justly kill?


[quote]It's not elitist. I could stand there and say "Man, that really smells of elderberries" to a guy with his legs cut off, or I could say "that's a crappy job" to a guy who collects garbage for a living but no matter how much I think about it I'm never going to fully understand what they are going through. Same with military service, you can never really understand what motivates soldiers to enlist or what their families go through unless you're in that position yourself. You can try to sort it out with logic and try to figure out the emotions behind it all day long. You can come to conclusions in your own mind, but they aren't always going to be accurate and that's not a matter of the other side being "overly emotional", it's a matter of fact. Even people who say "I would join but..." don't understand 100% because they have not been there. Empathy is not the same as understanding. You can't accurately "logic out" the answers when you don't know all the facts.
[/quote]

This is not about having something [i]happen[/i] to you. I am not talking about a passion, I am talking about an [i]action[/i]. Actions must be guided in some part by reason. Is it [i]reasonable[/i] to put oneself in the violent service of politicians/the will of the majority? Or are you guided by faith in the politicians that decide who you may morally kill?

~Sternhauser

[picchick]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='15 November 2009 - 06:04 PM' timestamp='1258326289' post='2003363']
This is not about having something [i]happen[/i] to you. I am not talking about a passion, I am talking about an [i]action[/i]. Actions must be guided in some part by reason. Is it [i]reasonable[/i] to put oneself in the violent service of politicians/the will of the majority? Or are you guided by faith in the politicians that decide who you may morally kill?

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Until you live my life, you will NEVER know the reason. Just like I cannot for the life of me understand your reasoning and logic to disrespect troops and their efforts all the way back to the revolution.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Ave Maria Totus Tuus' date='15 November 2009 - 06:00 PM' timestamp='1258322402' post='2003328']
Mr. Sternhauser,

As someone who proudly wears the cloth of our nation, I want you to know that myself and my brethren in arms proudly defend your right to sit here on this forum and say whatever you want. I honorably defend your right to have your opinion, no matter how twisted some of your logic is here.

While I respect your right to an opinion, and by my service in the military would offer my blood to keep that right, I would like to ask you one thing before this thread continues. Please stop making judgements and assumptions about the military and "what we do" or "why we do it." As many have said already, you cannot comprehend this unless you are actually in this place. I don't care who you've talked to or who you know or what "cold hard logic" you try to use--you just don't get it unless you're living it.

Whatever you believe, it's an honor to serve you, sir.
[/quote]

You do not protect my freedoms. From whom do you imagine you are protecting anyone's freedoms? Were the Iraqis going to come over in troop transports, land on Virginia Beach in LCT's while crying out "Allahu akhbar," and impose Shariah law? Did American soldiers protect Americans on 9/11, from a handful of boxcutter-wielding Saudis? Would they be able to stop another set of determined individuals from slipping across the porous border whenever they want, with whatever they want, and once again kill as many people as they want? Nonsense!

Tell me who, specifically, (names of individuals/States) threatens the liberty of Americans. Besides your commander-in-chief, of course.

No soldier since 1865 has died while fighting to protect the freedoms of anyone who lives within the United State. And he was a Confederate.

No one has had the logistical capability in the past 100 years to invade and sustain an occupation. The Soviets in their heyday could not successfully occupy Afghanistan, defended by a few goatherders with .50 BMG's and Stingers lent to the Mujahideen by the United State, and some No. 1 Mk. III Enfields left by the [i]last[/i] army to try to occupy their land. Unsuccessfully. Do you really think they could have invaded the United State, armed to the teeth as the people of this land are? Tanks? APC's? The Soviets had them, too. They all need boots on the ground for support. Nuclear weapons, then? How are you, whatever your MOS is, defending anyone from nuclear weapons?

I've heard the "I defend your right to speak freely" line countless times. It is just that. A line. It is not a factual statement. It's merely something people say to justify their indignance at being called out. I've also heard "Come say that 'I don't defend your freedom' to my face and see what happens," countless times. It simply proves my point. They cannot defend their viewpoint with logic, so they try to defend it with violence, either emotional or physical. It's also ironic that someone threatens me with violence for denying that he defends my freedom to speech. Very ironic.

~Sternhauser

Edited November 15, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Jaime]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='15 November 2009 - 06:24 PM' timestamp='1258327446' post='2003371']
You do not protect my freedoms. From whom do you imagine you are protecting anyone's freedoms? Were the Iraqis going to come over in troop transports, land on Virginia Beach in LCT's while crying out "Allahu akhbar," and impose Shariah law? Did American soldiers protect Americans on 9/11, from a handful of boxcutter-wielding Saudis? Would they be able to stop another set of determined individuals from slipping across the porous border whenever they want, with whatever they want, and once again kill as many people as they want? Nonsense!

Tell me who, specifically, (names of individuals/States) threatens the liberty of Americans. Besides your commander-in-chief, of course.

No soldier since 1865 has died while fighting to protect the freedoms of anyone who lives within the United State. And he was a Confederate.

No one has had the logistical capability in the past 100 years to invade and sustain an occupation. The Soviets in their heyday could not successfully occupy Afghanistan, defended by a few goatherders with .50 BMG's and Sparrows lent to the Mujahideen by the United State, and some No. 1 Mk. III Enfields left by the [i]last[/i] army to try to occupy their land. Unsuccessfully. Do you really think they could have invaded the United State, armed to the teeth as the people of this land are? Tanks? APC's? The Soviets had them, too. They all need boots on the ground for support. Nuclear weapons, then? How are you, whatever your MOS is, defending anyone from nuclear weapons?

I've heard the "I defend your right to speak freely" line countless times. It is just that. A line. It is not a factual statement. It's merely something people say to justify their indignance at being called out. I've also heard "Come say that 'I don't defend your freedom' to my face and see what happens," countless times. It simply proves my point. They cannot defend their viewpoint with logic, so they try to defend it with violence, either emotional or physical. It's also ironic that someone threatens me with violence for denying that he defends my freedom to speech. Very ironic.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

This is the dumbest thing ever posted on Phatmass.

(Congratulations Rcklknny for "You don't know what its like growing up on the bad side of Lincoln NE" being ousted out of the top spot!)

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='picchick' date='15 November 2009 - 06:07 PM' timestamp='1258322836' post='2003332']
I know many people who are joining the military as well. Many. And most of them go for the benefits of education, money, the job they want (for example military police), the discipline, the structure. I have not heard one person say, "I joined to kill other people." Or any of the phrases you have said.[/quote]

I have. Education, money, etc. I will ask you, as well: what differentiates a United State soldier who is primarily motivated by money or special favors, from a mercenary? Is it not the cause? Is the cause decided upon by politicians (as it is, 90% of the time) usually a just cause?

[quote]
Why did you compare the actions of a soldier to the actions of a gay couple? They are totally completely opposite. Many times the soldier are following orders. You can argue whatever you want about the motive of the orders. A gay couple act freely and voluntarily. [/quote]

I compared the immorality of the act, and the attempt to justify it, not the nature of the act itself. Does the fact that a soldier acts under orders and the homosexual couple who act wholly voluntarily change the nature of any immoral act either of them may do? No. It merely lessens the [i]culpability[/i] of anyone in uniform who happens to commit an immoral act.


[quote]Yes. I can defend my motives with cold hard logic. I could tell you everything in my heart, mind and soul. Decisions are not only made of logic and reason but also with emotion. The two go hand in hand. But you will never understand. You will find every excuse in the book as to why I should not have joined. I know. I have delt with people like you on a smaller level that told me I could get the same experience in civilian life. No one will understand except those who are in the military or those who are vets. That is just the way it goes. [/quote]

I have no doubt it is a different experience. I have no doubt the camaraderie is real, and heartwarming. My point is that this same feeling was felt by German troops as they swept over innocent nations "to serve their country." What military man in any country didn't join the military for the same reasons United State soldiers joined? Were they all correct to put themselves in the violent service of politicians? Is picking up a gun for the State, or for money, (not what you think you are doing, I know too well) an intrinsically praiseworthy act? Or does there have to be something more to justify that action, like a sure and noble cause? You don't know what causes you will be sent in for. The only constant is that politicians will be calling the shots, and politicians have historically chosen to kill for immoral reasons.


[quote]It is like saying, "I am Catholic, I go to Church, I believe a, b and c." If you say that to any person outside the Church they are not going to understand fully the logic or the emotion (because you cannot say that you are Catholic solely based off of logic) of your decision. And many will even find it illogical. [/quote]

I can defend my decision to join the Church with reason. I have not seen anyone in this entire thread say that it is reasonable to sign up to kill at the behest of politicians. Do you want to be the first?

[quote]Elitist? Until you live the life, you will never understand.[/quote]

You could say the same thing about hang gliding or motorcycling. The point is that neither involves [i]killing[/i] at someone else's behest. There is nothing wrong with killing in itself. But it is tremendously imprudent to put oneself in a position in which not only non-Catholics, but clearly corrupt politicians, are deciding who you are supposed to kill.

~Sternhauser

Edited November 15, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Sternhauser]

Picchick,

I'm not concerned about your motivations, which you call "your reason" for being in the military. As said, I have no doubt that some soldiers' motives for joining up are very pure. Probably the majority. But good intention does not prudence make. I want to know how you justify putting yourself in a situation where if you are sent to kill, it will most probably be at the behest of politicians whose motives for war are [i]not [/i]the motives they tell you? How can you be willing to make yourself a link in the chain of command in which you will more than likely be sent to support/engage in operations in an unjust war?

Read this piece by Smedley Butler, USMC General and twice the recipient of the Medal of Honor. I think [i]he[/i] knows what it is to be in the military. He saw combat in several in several regions. He recognizes the difference between "motives" and "prudence." Go ahead and sling some virulence at him for saying the same things I am saying.

[url="http://www.wanttoknow.info/warisaracket"]War is a Racket, by USMC General Smedley Butler[/url]

An excerpt from a speech given in 1933. [i]He[/i] was honest about what he actually fought to accomplish, despite his personal motives.

"War is just a racket. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison.Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. [b]I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers.[/b]

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. [b]Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.[/b]

I helped make Mexico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."


Some excerpts from the article.

[font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"]"Napoleon once said,[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"]'All men are enamored of decorations...they positively hunger for them.'[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"]So by developing the Napoleonic system – the medal business – the government learned it could get soldiers for less money, because the boys liked to be decorated. Until the Civil War there were no medals. Then the Congressional Medal of Honor was handed out. It made enlistments easier. After the Civil War no new medals were issued until the Spanish-American War.[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"]In the World War, we used propaganda to make the boys accept conscription. They were made to feel ashamed if they didn't join the army.[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"]So vicious was this war propaganda that even God was brought into it. With few exceptions our clergymen joined in the clamor to kill, kill, kill. To kill the Germans. God is on our side...it is His will that the Germans be killed.[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"]And in Germany, the good pastors called upon the Germans to kill the allies...to please the same God. That was a part of the general propaganda, built up to make people war conscious and murder conscious.[/size][/font]
[b]
[/b][font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"][b]Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. [/b]This was the "war to end all wars." This was the "war to make the world safe for democracy." No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one told them that the ships on which they were going to cross might be torpedoed by submarines built with United States patents. They were just told it was to be a "glorious adventure."[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"]I am not a fool as to believe that war is a thing of the past. I know the people do not want war, but there is no use in saying we cannot be pushed into another war.[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"]Looking back, Woodrow Wilson was re-elected president in 1916 on a platform that he had "kept us out of war" and on the implied promise that he would "keep us out of war." Yet, five months later he asked Congress to declare war on Germany.[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"]In that five-month interval the people had not been asked whether they had changed their minds. The 4,000,000 young men who put on uniforms and marched or sailed away were not asked whether they wanted to go forth to suffer and die.[/size][/font]

[b][font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"]Then what caused our government to change its mind so suddenly?[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"]Money.[/size][/font][/b]

[font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"]An allied commission, it may be recalled, came over shortly before the war declaration and called on the President. The President summoned a group of advisers. The head of the commission spoke. Stripped of its diplomatic language, this is what he told the President and his group:[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"]'There is no use kidding ourselves any longer. The cause of the allies is lost. We now owe you (American bankers, American munitions makers, American manufacturers, American speculators, American exporters) five or six billion dollars.[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"]If we lose (and without the help of the United States we must lose) we, England, France and Italy, cannot pay back this money...and Germany won't. . . . '
[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"]Had secrecy been outlawed as far as war negotiations were concerned, and had the press been invited to be present at that conference, or had radio been available to broadcast the proceedings, America never would have entered the World War. But this conference, like all war discussions, was shrouded in utmost secrecy. [b]When our boys were sent off to war they were told it was a "war to make the world safe for democracy" and a "war to end all wars." [/b][/size][/font][b]

[font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"]Well, eighteen years after, the world has less of democracy than it had then. Besides, what business is it of ours whether Russia or Germany or England or France or Italy or Austria live under democracies or monarchies? Whether they are Fascists or Communists? Our problem is to preserve our own democracy.[/size][/font][/b]

[font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"]And very little, if anything, has been accomplished to assure us that the World War was really the war to end all wars.[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"]Yes, we have had disarmament conferences and limitations of arms conferences. They don't mean a thing. One has just failed; the results of another have been nullified. We send our professional soldiers and our sailors and our politicians and our diplomats to these conferences. And what happens?[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"]The professional soldiers and sailors don't want to disarm. No admiral wants to be without a ship. No general wants to be without a command. Both mean men without jobs. They are not for disarmament. They cannot be for limitations of arms. And at all these conferences, lurking in the background but all-powerful, just the same, are the sinister agents of those who profit by war. They see to it that these conferences do not disarm or seriously limit armaments."[/size][/font]

[font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"][size="2"] What do you think of the logic in the things General Smedley Butler said, Jai.me?
[/size][/font]

[size="2"][font="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"] ~Sternhauser[/font][/size]

Edited November 16, 2009 by Sternhauser