to add on to the base closures- we have less bases in Germany now than ever due to base closures, we have handed multiple US facilities in South Korea over to the South Koreans, an we no longer maintain bases in the Philippines. Goat is a turd- actually he is a pigfucker
If you want a more complete picture of what I am talking about, you can type in "The Myth of National Defense" on google search bar, and you will find a free downloadable PDF book that goes into much more detail.
Since the Iraqi government wants us out and most Iraqis according to the polls, when do you think we should leave? Btw, I like the video on your front page dealing with the Sunni region.
Yeah I subbed because of it. We should stay even if those in Iraq want us to leave earlier? Do you think we should keep "permanent" bases in the region and do you think we have the right to decide what companies can extract Iraqi oil or what currency they use to trade oil in?
We should stay until there is a stable government. The video by battim I featured on my channel presently explains the plan to make that happen in simple terms. When that plan is well under way is the time to withdraw completely. I favour a slow reduction as it proceeds for logistical and psychological reasons. I do not favour permanent bases. Do we have the "right" isn't to me a germane question. Can we? Yes. Should we exercise that ability? It depends on what you think the goal is.
It depends on what you value in terms of trade. These are situations where questions of "should we be able" don't matter nearly so much as "should we exercise that ability"? So, I would say ask yourself what the benefits of the exercise of that ability are, and what its sum total of detriments are, and whichever weighs most is likely a useful path to take. Looking at the issue myself and taking reality into account, I see little problem with pimping currency.
I mean if another company, nation, or indiviual wishes to buy oil from Iraq they must first switich their currency to dollars (propping up the dollar) to buy it. Depending on what currency Iraq bases its oil trade on will decide how much value they get for their oil. The US makes Iraq use dollars for oil trade.
I understood you. Let me make myself more plain. For the US the upside is propping up the dollar. The downside is... ? Why would the US choose any other course, given they have the ability?
Good I was afraid I hadn't made my point clear. The downside for the US? Why should the US force another people to prop up their currency without their consent?
It wasn't a question of whether you understood and or what you expect. It was a question of do you approve it and should we continue those types of policies? If you are fine with that type of tyranny why would you be against any other form such as a corporation forcing a given area to buy its protect by paying a gang to destroy competition and intimating citizens into purchasing their product?
Show that THE MEGAPOWER can be forced to spend massive amounts of money and manpower to put dents in decentrailzed resistance. This works because resistance isn't based on conventional combat, but on the weaknesses of modern armies, that is, most of them are a based around a WWII format, although the US military has made considerable advances in a more practical direction dealing with the world today. If the US does win in Iraq, It won't be because of the reasons you stated modern armies would..
Using Iraq as your example wasn't the best idea. Has the US pulled out of Iraq because of resistance? No. When the US leaves will it be because of resistance? No. The same was true in Vietnam. It was not guerrilla resistance that caused that withdrawal either. Guerrilla resistance can harass a modern military, but it cannot successfully prosecute a victory. But maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Do you have real-world examples of your theory succeeding?
smaller, local forces, and has had little or no conflict with large nations with technology remotely near it's own. Let us for example, assume that China were to invade with a million man army. In a society with little "Soldier" specializaiton, the occupiers would be dealing with apx. 50 million resisting individuals. (I assmue that a majority of women, and children will not parcicipate openly or covertly, and that a percentage of the male population will not do so.)
This example just betrays a lack of understanding of military strategy as well as having an unrealistic ideal of militia (50 million my ass), and an assumption that the average civilian is willing or able to defend themselves and the territory in which they reside. It also betrays a lack of understanding of command/control and the strategic and tactical value of decisive coordinated efforts, specialized armaments and training, and the ability of said invading force to bomb at will.
I do not mean active combatants but resistance participants, that is, individuals who are actively financing the resistance, and exicuting the actions of the resistance, that is, disabling multi-million dollar tanks with a few hundred dollars worth of supplies.
The primary reason that militias are no longer a viable national defense is the simple "armaments outstrip the value of massive numbers." There are others, but in the final analysis a bunch of barely trained guys with guns cannot stand up to a well-trained mechanized infantry regiment with heavy armaments, much less carpet bombing or daisycutters.
Conventional warfare is not the means of resistance, insurgancy involving IED's, sniper fire, and painting the occupying force as immoral, thereby increasing financing. I understand that any modern force can and would crush a milita in open combat, that is why I never advocated it. I understand examples such as mogadeshu (Incorrect spelling noted) show this abundantly. However, examples such as elements of the Iraqi resistance (Not justifying tactics or causes of the group, just an example)
It will be because they were able to aquire the support of the POPULATION, not because they could bomb the hell out of ANYTHING ANYWHERE AT ANY TIME. It won't be strenght of arms, but the ability to get the populaiton, which is supporting the "resistance/milita/insergancy" to do otherwise.
Using Iraq as your example wasn't the best idea. Has the US pulled out of Iraq because of resistance? No. When the US leaves will it be because of resistance? No. The same was true in Vietnam. It was not guerrilla resistance that caused that withdrawal either. Guerrilla resistance can harass a modern military, but it cannot successfully prosecute a victory. But maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Do you have real-world examples of your theory succeeding?
And incidentally, strength of arms is enough to occupy territory. Please see WW2 or for that matter the history of war in general. You don't need the support of the conquered population to successfully prosecute a conquest.
I wish a lot of what g0at said he wishes in his video, but again his wishes were aimed at the system/gov't, not at the troops. I, too, don't know how to get people to separate different entities such as military and government.
The government is indeed corrupt, and has been for an extremely long time and increasingly so. However, putting pressure on civilians not to support the military isn't going to make the government any less corrupt. The only solution to this problem is to confront the government itself - that is who gives orders to the military anyhow. Point the finger at the truly responsible party: the government, beneath whom the military and the system lie.
Kikai, can you just once NOT come up with analogies (or ideas, statements, points, etc.) that make so much damn sense? I can't disagree with you very often! lol ;)
The military acts on orders from the government yes, but the military, the individuals that it, ultimately CHOOSE to obey them. Remove the sword of the state and it can no longer enforce corruption.
It's a matter of living up to oaths, and believing in the system of government (in the USA, that is the Constitution) you swore to defend. In the USA the military executes the will of the people as elucidated by the elected representatives of the people. The people can influence policy and soldiers as citizens retain the right to participate. At the end of the debate, when policy is set, constitutional and legal, it is the soldier's sworn duty to obey the orders of those appointed over them.
So, the quickest, simplest, easiest and most "just" way to stop the corrupt use of the military is to attack the corruption, not the military. You seem to believe that the military conforms to the idea of "voluntary free association." It does not.
MatthewLeee, I'm sorry that you don't understand how *all* systems work.
Your view is a nice ideal, but ideals only work if they can be developed into real solutions, which takes *years* (as in decades, if not longer) to even begin to implement.
Further, of course a soldier CHOOSES to obey rules - upon the completion of MEPS, an oath is taken. Ponder this a moment.... if our country's defense were indeed needed, would YOU want soldiers just walking away? The oath is there for a reason.
Why do you assume that soldiers would walk away, or that they are even needed in the first place? If you are threatened by another individual, your first instinct is to mount a defense, if an entire reigon is threatened, than the entire group of people has a motivation to rise up and defend itself. I am supporting more of a minuteman system than the modern military.
Militias are crushed by modern military forces. Your minutemen ideal is not only impractical, but frankly ludicrous in the climate of modern warfare. Minutemen vs air superiority, saturation bombing, and modern mechanized infantry. Think before you say something stupid.
So of course when a civilian supported insurgancy is put against a modern military force it will inevitabily fail? such personal defense organizations, militias, and the like, rely on the support of the population. Unless the aggressors in question are willing to kill many civilians, which will anger the population further, they are unlikely to crush the milita. So long as the population is willing and able to resist, it will. The US military currently is engaged primarily in conflict with...
Perhaps not inevitably fail, but if combated with modern techniques for dealing with insurgency, it's a shoo in to fail. Insurgency is not a valid "national defense" however. If insurgency is your national defense, you're opening yourself to be pillaged and bullied. :) Defense is more than insuring a territory is not occupied.
Insergency, coupled with a population most likely well aquainted with weapons and arms. Lack of foriegn intervention, not giving potential enemies motives to attack. Privateering, that is the use of piracy as a tool. Political assassination, coupled with the nations lack of a capital (There is no jugular vein to cut) will make it near impossible to decide WHERE to do most anything. The majority of the pop. will be non-cooperative. If not, then even one-forth will probably be sufficent.
Motive to attack: "we want their stuff." Nothing you do in terms of policy prevents that. Again, you're not describing a national defense. You are describing ways to harass an occupying force or in the no capital city statement a non-issue. Nothing you have said prevents piracy or profiteering actions, nor does it prevent encroachment.
It is an issue because one of the primary ways to break a city state is to take it's capital city. If there is no capital city, you have less of a clear target. No, nothing I have said deals with piracy, piracy would be delt with either by paying them off (Bad idea for a variety of reasons) or through policing associations and or mercs. I could get more specific if you wish.
great response Kikai, I just wanted to add though that Nuremburg was not the only nazi allusion he made, there was also the comparison of soldier homecomings to celebrations of the conquest of austria, poland and other european states by the germans
First, policy makers are at fault, citizens in the political system are at fault, AND the troops are at fault. To put the troops above the entire system, is " silly."
Well, I sit back and I look at the difference between me and you Kikai, we both support the community, our nation in different ways. I may have chosen to go a different route as you have, and I think we are both critical of our country. Do you think the actions of our military and or government and those who join the military would be better or worse if it was criticized more as a whole? But, thanks for entertaining me even though you think I have no understanding on the topic.
I think that all aspects of government are open to criticism, and that honest and well-thought out criticism is good whether or not I agree with said criticism.
The reason I take onus with your criticism of the troops thusfar I would like to think I stated clearly. You seem to be criticizing the troops for areas outside their immediate responsibility, in a manner like criticizing Walmart employees for Walmart's corporate policy, to use Az's analogy. I encourage you to participate in the political system of our nation regardless of our disagreements on this or any other issue however.
First off, every troops of course joined voluntarily, while I don't think that they are responsible for the system as a whole, or the actions of the government, they should know that it doesn't matter why they join, or for what reason, all that matters is what they will actually be DOING. You listed a few examples, I'm glad that the troops have done something good in the last 100 years. But they have done MORE bad things.
Standards of justification are argued for. Politicians are the ones that argue for them, who in turn are justified in arguing due to the fact that the system of government that brought them to their position was argued for. It was argued for by the founding fathers after years of arguing within the states by--get this--the people.
Just to repeat myself a bit, standards of justification are argued for. If we're looking for justification to be something more marvelous and trustworthy, we'll be perpetually disappointed.
I don't see what such a statement does to help clarify this question though. I don't see how it's relevant. Of course arguementation is a process that can indirectly convince people of various positions. What does such a point do to actually back up a particular position though? How does it make people who in no way ever explicitly endorsed the actions of others responsible for the actions of others (in this case, soldiers)?
It doesn't. I'm not saying it does. In fact, I said moral justification is subjective, and I said standards of justification are argued for. Arguments don't form some mass conclusion, each person decides for themselves. And we can't expect more out of justification than that. So again, "unjust law" is a legal oxymoron. It only makes sense subjectively. If you wish to call a law unjust, fine. Argue for it. It's not automatically unjust.
But if we go by such a standard, then law must be assumed to be just before argumentation takes place. This seems odd to me, assuming a positive claim before argumentation can even take place. I find it strange that you entirely shift the burden of proof onto someone claiming injustice, while justice is simply assumed.
Yes, that's the case NOW. It wasn't always that way, but now we're in this framework. You're welcome to argue for your moral standards, starting from the ground up. But you don't get an automatic equal footing with things that are far beyond in their process of being argued for.
Well, "informed" is a tricky word. I'm informed enough to know that much, but not informed enough to be able to say what it is to be informed. (In other words, yes. There *can*.)
On further reflection, yes it is possible in systems of government where the populace is not a significant factor in governance. In oligarchies or monarchies for instance, what matters is the ability of the monarch or governing body, their informed or uninformed status and whether or not they value "justice" and how they define justice. Whether or not the peasant is informed is irrelevant.
I can't justify a monarchy....even if it can justify itself....and as I am not about abstract forms but the practice or the attempt at self governance, im not all that interested in that digression... being not a peasant and all....;)
Also, I think you're obfuscating something here. "The people" as such did not and do not uniformly consent to whatever the result happens to be in every respect. It's not as if the people all came to a mutual conclusion resulting from argumentation and lo and behold the state was formed, and lo and behold everything that follows from there on is consented to by everyone in perpetuity for future generations.
The video is not to debate the state, but rather how the military functions under our present system of government and who is responsible for unjust wars and unjust policies. If you want to debate our government, make a video and I'm your huckleberry. :)
I'm merely responding to you and Azrienoch's defense of the military arm of the state, and what I consider to be your obfuscation of individual responsibility.
It's not obfuscation of individual responsibility. We're speaking within the system, within the structure of normal, which is the easiest way to be understood.
I think it is an obfuscation of individual responsibility to say that everyone who exists in a particular society is somehow responsibile for the actions of a soldier which they did not necessarily overtly endorse as individuals. The responsibility is actually being externalized away from the individual actor, in this case the soldier. The responsibility is also being externalized away from the actual policy makers, in this case the legislators.
This is something I've noticed of you and of others, that there is a tendency to think the individual is still an individual in a group. They are physically, yes, but the fact is we think and act differently in groups than we do alone. It's not an externalization as in a disassociation, but an externalization as in a social movement.
An individual still has his functions, that is, moral judgement, and the capacity to act on said judgements. He is as much an indiviudal as anywhere else. We do get caught up in "collective" identities, however, since these functions still exist, absolute moral responsability still exists.
What moral tenet do you believe a soldier violates while serving honorably (not violating regulations, military justice, the law or the constitution) in Iraq?
And then further: Absolute moral responsibility to which subjective moral standard?
He first gives up his absolute free will to act morally or immorally by placing on himself an obligation to serve something other than the objective and completely separate from human whims morality. A soldier places himself in a position where his understanding of right and wrong, whatever that understanding may be, becomes subordinant to human will. This, in and of itself is a form of nihilism. However, I do understand the Non-Aggression Principle which I also adhere to, a soldier is bound...
Obfuscating, perhaps. Simplifying, definitely. You're right. Not everyone gathered together to make these decisions. Not everyone can speak either, but we say (in simplification) that essentially everyone can. The people that came forward DID compromise to mutual agreement, and the people that didn't either agreed or kept basically silent, and nobody but the silent can be blamed for that.
I don't recall keeping silent. I vocally opposed the war when it was being proposed. I don't see how I could reasonably be assigned with responsiblity for the actions of soldiers that I have consistantly vocally opposed and have done nothing to overtly support. When it comes to the actual policy-making process, it is directly controled by a very small number of people, and I find it obfuscatory to place blame on literally everyone within society.
Who puts those leaders (the very small number of people you spoke of) into their positions? When we elect representatives, it is to represent our interests, no? Hence the title?
For one thing, it does not follow that people consent to whatever the government happens to do once they vote for a politician. This does not describe how the system actually works, the politician does not inherently represent the people merely by being voted into office; they can theoretically do the opposite of what they said. Furthermore, there's also the people who didn't vote for the particular person or thing and those who didn't vote at all. So in no way is there any true representation.
You're removing individual voter responsibility from the electoral process. The voter looks at the candidates, their rhetoric, how their record matches their rhetoric, how their present projects match their stated purposes and goals, etc. Then the voter votes for the candidate they feel best represents their interests. Then the voter makes their feelings known directly to the rep through letter writing, lobby and similar means concerning issues of importance to them. That is participation.
The individual voter can't be held responsible, since the individual voter cannot have an absolute effect on the process. I, for example, cannot determine who the next president is, so I cannot be held responsible for whoever occupies the office if I didn't vote for him, or even if I did.
Yet you seem to hold the individual soldier responsible for US foreign policy, when he himself cannot have an absolute effect on the process. Which way do you want it?
I said that soldiers are responsible for their enforcement of foriegn policy. They made the choice to surrender their free will to a body of men. They swore the oath of loyalty. His compliance with his orders was his original choice.
The acceptance of your citizenship is consent to the terms of the social contract. You can rescind the terms at any time, as you are under no legal obligation to maintain your status as a citizen. An 'exit clause, if you will.
I wasn't silent about the war either. I'm still not. Unfortunately, the silence I was just talking about was about the founding of this government. We weren't around, and the consensus is that we keep doing what we were doing. We can disagree with the masses, but you and I aren't actually doing anything to change it. No movement has been large enough to make an impression. Until that time, we're just complainers that also agree with the masses.
The military executes the will of the people as elucidated by the elected representatives of the people. The people can influence policy and individual soldiers as citizens retain the right to participate. At the end of the debate, when policy is set, constitutional and legal, it is the soldier's sworn duty to obey the orders of those appointed over them. If you don't want soldiers engaged in unjust wars, fight the wars before they begin and unjust policies before they are instituted.
It is a misnomer to assume that "the will of the people" is being executed by the military. That is the ideal of how it's supposed to work, not how it actually does work. There's also the problem that "the people" have no such uniform will. Also, I do oppose the wars and unjust polices before they are instituted.
Uniform consent by every citizen is not required by our system of government. I am glad that you participate in our political system though, that is what I am advocating. If you don't like something, work to fix it or stop it from being instituted. Don't just bitch. :) Good on you.
Also, you're making an argument for a broken system. How does "the system is broken" translate into "I don't like the troops and hold them responsible for the policies of a broken system"?
Susan Atkins didn't make policy either, she enacted policy.
BloatedSensations 3 years ago
to add on to the base closures- we have less bases in Germany now than ever due to base closures, we have handed multiple US facilities in South Korea over to the South Koreans, an we no longer maintain bases in the Philippines. Goat is a turd- actually he is a pigfucker
grayArea1134 3 years ago
Btw, if you have the time and it is easy for you to do I would like that list.
overmind25 3 years ago
The defending rights list? Yeah, PM me someplace to send it and I'll get it out to you ASAP.
Kikai93 3 years ago
You can't pm my youtube account?
overmind25 3 years ago
Sure I can.
Kikai93 3 years ago
If you don't get something within 24 hours, PM me a reminder. :)
Kikai93 3 years ago
If you want a more complete picture of what I am talking about, you can type in "The Myth of National Defense" on google search bar, and you will find a free downloadable PDF book that goes into much more detail.
MatthewLeee 3 years ago
I've read it. Maybe I should make a video explaining why it's a lollercaust. XD
Kikai93 3 years ago
Since the Iraqi government wants us out and most Iraqis according to the polls, when do you think we should leave? Btw, I like the video on your front page dealing with the Sunni region.
overmind25 3 years ago
When the Al Anbar scenario is universal throughout Iraq. And thanks for the compliment. :)
Kikai93 3 years ago
Yeah I subbed because of it. We should stay even if those in Iraq want us to leave earlier? Do you think we should keep "permanent" bases in the region and do you think we have the right to decide what companies can extract Iraqi oil or what currency they use to trade oil in?
overmind25 3 years ago
We should stay until there is a stable government. The video by battim I featured on my channel presently explains the plan to make that happen in simple terms. When that plan is well under way is the time to withdraw completely. I favour a slow reduction as it proceeds for logistical and psychological reasons. I do not favour permanent bases. Do we have the "right" isn't to me a germane question. Can we? Yes. Should we exercise that ability? It depends on what you think the goal is.
Kikai93 3 years ago
I'll phrase it like this since you don't want to deal in right terms. Should we be able to do decide on what currency they base their oil trade on?
overmind25 3 years ago
It depends on what you value in terms of trade. These are situations where questions of "should we be able" don't matter nearly so much as "should we exercise that ability"? So, I would say ask yourself what the benefits of the exercise of that ability are, and what its sum total of detriments are, and whichever weighs most is likely a useful path to take. Looking at the issue myself and taking reality into account, I see little problem with pimping currency.
Kikai93 3 years ago
I mean if another company, nation, or indiviual wishes to buy oil from Iraq they must first switich their currency to dollars (propping up the dollar) to buy it. Depending on what currency Iraq bases its oil trade on will decide how much value they get for their oil. The US makes Iraq use dollars for oil trade.
overmind25 3 years ago
I understood you. Let me make myself more plain. For the US the upside is propping up the dollar. The downside is... ? Why would the US choose any other course, given they have the ability?
Kikai93 3 years ago
Good I was afraid I hadn't made my point clear. The downside for the US? Why should the US force another people to prop up their currency without their consent?
overmind25 3 years ago
Why shouldn't the US do that? It doesn't suffer by doing so, and gains the propping up of its currency.
Kikai93 3 years ago
Of course it doesn't suffer from the force! The Iraqis/oil traders do. They get less value for their oil.
overmind25 3 years ago
And the US should care about that... why? I don't expect entities to operate outside of their own perspective.
Kikai93 3 years ago
It wasn't a question of whether you understood and or what you expect. It was a question of do you approve it and should we continue those types of policies? If you are fine with that type of tyranny why would you be against any other form such as a corporation forcing a given area to buy its protect by paying a gang to destroy competition and intimating citizens into purchasing their product?
overmind25 3 years ago
Oh, I see. Then no, I do not believe that the US should continue these types of policy.
Kikai93 3 years ago
So rights don't exist?
MatthewLeee 3 years ago
That's a long topic, but the short answer is rights only exist to the degree that they can be enforced. Maybe I should make a video about that.
Kikai93 3 years ago
Now that would be fun. :)
MatthewLeee 3 years ago
This is a pretty good video response.
overmind25 3 years ago
Show that THE MEGAPOWER can be forced to spend massive amounts of money and manpower to put dents in decentrailzed resistance. This works because resistance isn't based on conventional combat, but on the weaknesses of modern armies, that is, most of them are a based around a WWII format, although the US military has made considerable advances in a more practical direction dealing with the world today. If the US does win in Iraq, It won't be because of the reasons you stated modern armies would..
MatthewLeee 3 years ago
Using Iraq as your example wasn't the best idea. Has the US pulled out of Iraq because of resistance? No. When the US leaves will it be because of resistance? No. The same was true in Vietnam. It was not guerrilla resistance that caused that withdrawal either. Guerrilla resistance can harass a modern military, but it cannot successfully prosecute a victory. But maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Do you have real-world examples of your theory succeeding?
Kikai93 3 years ago
smaller, local forces, and has had little or no conflict with large nations with technology remotely near it's own. Let us for example, assume that China were to invade with a million man army. In a society with little "Soldier" specializaiton, the occupiers would be dealing with apx. 50 million resisting individuals. (I assmue that a majority of women, and children will not parcicipate openly or covertly, and that a percentage of the male population will not do so.)
MatthewLeee 3 years ago
This example just betrays a lack of understanding of military strategy as well as having an unrealistic ideal of militia (50 million my ass), and an assumption that the average civilian is willing or able to defend themselves and the territory in which they reside. It also betrays a lack of understanding of command/control and the strategic and tactical value of decisive coordinated efforts, specialized armaments and training, and the ability of said invading force to bomb at will.
Kikai93 3 years ago
I do not mean active combatants but resistance participants, that is, individuals who are actively financing the resistance, and exicuting the actions of the resistance, that is, disabling multi-million dollar tanks with a few hundred dollars worth of supplies.
MatthewLeee 3 years ago
The primary reason that militias are no longer a viable national defense is the simple "armaments outstrip the value of massive numbers." There are others, but in the final analysis a bunch of barely trained guys with guns cannot stand up to a well-trained mechanized infantry regiment with heavy armaments, much less carpet bombing or daisycutters.
Kikai93 3 years ago
Conventional warfare is not the means of resistance, insurgancy involving IED's, sniper fire, and painting the occupying force as immoral, thereby increasing financing. I understand that any modern force can and would crush a milita in open combat, that is why I never advocated it. I understand examples such as mogadeshu (Incorrect spelling noted) show this abundantly. However, examples such as elements of the Iraqi resistance (Not justifying tactics or causes of the group, just an example)
MatthewLeee 3 years ago
It will be because they were able to aquire the support of the POPULATION, not because they could bomb the hell out of ANYTHING ANYWHERE AT ANY TIME. It won't be strenght of arms, but the ability to get the populaiton, which is supporting the "resistance/milita/insergancy" to do otherwise.
MatthewLeee 3 years ago
Using Iraq as your example wasn't the best idea. Has the US pulled out of Iraq because of resistance? No. When the US leaves will it be because of resistance? No. The same was true in Vietnam. It was not guerrilla resistance that caused that withdrawal either. Guerrilla resistance can harass a modern military, but it cannot successfully prosecute a victory. But maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Do you have real-world examples of your theory succeeding?
Kikai93 3 years ago
And incidentally, strength of arms is enough to occupy territory. Please see WW2 or for that matter the history of war in general. You don't need the support of the conquered population to successfully prosecute a conquest.
Kikai93 3 years ago
Excellent points, Kikai. :)
I wish a lot of what g0at said he wishes in his video, but again his wishes were aimed at the system/gov't, not at the troops. I, too, don't know how to get people to separate different entities such as military and government.
Katatawnic 3 years ago
As I just said to g0at RE: his video:
The government is indeed corrupt, and has been for an extremely long time and increasingly so. However, putting pressure on civilians not to support the military isn't going to make the government any less corrupt. The only solution to this problem is to confront the government itself - that is who gives orders to the military anyhow. Point the finger at the truly responsible party: the government, beneath whom the military and the system lie.
Katatawnic 3 years ago
Hear, hear. Antibiotics work far better to cure a bacterial respiratory infection than do decongestants.
Kikai93 3 years ago
Kikai, can you just once NOT come up with analogies (or ideas, statements, points, etc.) that make so much damn sense? I can't disagree with you very often! lol ;)
Katatawnic 3 years ago
The military acts on orders from the government yes, but the military, the individuals that it, ultimately CHOOSE to obey them. Remove the sword of the state and it can no longer enforce corruption.
MatthewLeee 3 years ago
It's a matter of living up to oaths, and believing in the system of government (in the USA, that is the Constitution) you swore to defend. In the USA the military executes the will of the people as elucidated by the elected representatives of the people. The people can influence policy and soldiers as citizens retain the right to participate. At the end of the debate, when policy is set, constitutional and legal, it is the soldier's sworn duty to obey the orders of those appointed over them.
Kikai93 3 years ago
So, the quickest, simplest, easiest and most "just" way to stop the corrupt use of the military is to attack the corruption, not the military. You seem to believe that the military conforms to the idea of "voluntary free association." It does not.
Kikai93 3 years ago
MatthewLeee, I'm sorry that you don't understand how *all* systems work.
Your view is a nice ideal, but ideals only work if they can be developed into real solutions, which takes *years* (as in decades, if not longer) to even begin to implement.
Further, of course a soldier CHOOSES to obey rules - upon the completion of MEPS, an oath is taken. Ponder this a moment.... if our country's defense were indeed needed, would YOU want soldiers just walking away? The oath is there for a reason.
Katatawnic 3 years ago
Why do you assume that soldiers would walk away, or that they are even needed in the first place? If you are threatened by another individual, your first instinct is to mount a defense, if an entire reigon is threatened, than the entire group of people has a motivation to rise up and defend itself. I am supporting more of a minuteman system than the modern military.
MatthewLeee 3 years ago
Militias are crushed by modern military forces. Your minutemen ideal is not only impractical, but frankly ludicrous in the climate of modern warfare. Minutemen vs air superiority, saturation bombing, and modern mechanized infantry. Think before you say something stupid.
Kikai93 3 years ago
Thank you, Kikai. That "minuteman" comment was directed at me, but you eliminated my need to respond. ;)
Katatawnic 3 years ago
So of course when a civilian supported insurgancy is put against a modern military force it will inevitabily fail? such personal defense organizations, militias, and the like, rely on the support of the population. Unless the aggressors in question are willing to kill many civilians, which will anger the population further, they are unlikely to crush the milita. So long as the population is willing and able to resist, it will. The US military currently is engaged primarily in conflict with...
MatthewLeee 3 years ago
Perhaps not inevitably fail, but if combated with modern techniques for dealing with insurgency, it's a shoo in to fail. Insurgency is not a valid "national defense" however. If insurgency is your national defense, you're opening yourself to be pillaged and bullied. :) Defense is more than insuring a territory is not occupied.
Kikai93 3 years ago
Insergency, coupled with a population most likely well aquainted with weapons and arms. Lack of foriegn intervention, not giving potential enemies motives to attack. Privateering, that is the use of piracy as a tool. Political assassination, coupled with the nations lack of a capital (There is no jugular vein to cut) will make it near impossible to decide WHERE to do most anything. The majority of the pop. will be non-cooperative. If not, then even one-forth will probably be sufficent.
MatthewLeee 3 years ago
Motive to attack: "we want their stuff." Nothing you do in terms of policy prevents that. Again, you're not describing a national defense. You are describing ways to harass an occupying force or in the no capital city statement a non-issue. Nothing you have said prevents piracy or profiteering actions, nor does it prevent encroachment.
Kikai93 3 years ago
It is an issue because one of the primary ways to break a city state is to take it's capital city. If there is no capital city, you have less of a clear target. No, nothing I have said deals with piracy, piracy would be delt with either by paying them off (Bad idea for a variety of reasons) or through policing associations and or mercs. I could get more specific if you wish.
MatthewLeee 3 years ago
great response Kikai, I just wanted to add though that Nuremburg was not the only nazi allusion he made, there was also the comparison of soldier homecomings to celebrations of the conquest of austria, poland and other european states by the germans
TrueNorth15 3 years ago
YES! a "Broad Brush" to say the Least. Very well said video.
KelsoFabulous 3 years ago
First, policy makers are at fault, citizens in the political system are at fault, AND the troops are at fault. To put the troops above the entire system, is " silly."
g0at 3 years ago
Well, I sit back and I look at the difference between me and you Kikai, we both support the community, our nation in different ways. I may have chosen to go a different route as you have, and I think we are both critical of our country. Do you think the actions of our military and or government and those who join the military would be better or worse if it was criticized more as a whole? But, thanks for entertaining me even though you think I have no understanding on the topic.
g0at 3 years ago
I think that all aspects of government are open to criticism, and that honest and well-thought out criticism is good whether or not I agree with said criticism.
Kikai93 3 years ago
The reason I take onus with your criticism of the troops thusfar I would like to think I stated clearly. You seem to be criticizing the troops for areas outside their immediate responsibility, in a manner like criticizing Walmart employees for Walmart's corporate policy, to use Az's analogy. I encourage you to participate in the political system of our nation regardless of our disagreements on this or any other issue however.
Kikai93 3 years ago
I also encourage further dialogue on this issue if you have anything to add or clarify. :)
Kikai93 3 years ago
First off, every troops of course joined voluntarily, while I don't think that they are responsible for the system as a whole, or the actions of the government, they should know that it doesn't matter why they join, or for what reason, all that matters is what they will actually be DOING. You listed a few examples, I'm glad that the troops have done something good in the last 100 years. But they have done MORE bad things.
g0at 3 years ago
The troops don't know what they will be doing. They are there and their oaths are "If something comes up, I will be there"
Unless the military hired psychics and I didn't know about it :)
childofares 3 years ago 2
Hear hear, childofares! :)
Katatawnic 3 years ago
It's actually a whole lot like trying to blame Christians for what's in the Bible.
azrienoch 3 years ago
Yes, exactly.
Kikai93 3 years ago
True. They don't have to follow policy either. "I was just following orders" is no excuse.
brainpolice2 3 years ago
If the orders are legal, the oath should be upheld. Unless your word doesn't mean much to you.
Kikai93 3 years ago
You seem to be thinking in purely legal terms though. What about "unjust law" or "unjust policy"?
brainpolice2 3 years ago
"Unjust law" is a legal oxymoron. Morally, it makes sense, but moral justification is subjective.
azrienoch 3 years ago
So should law be accepted as inherently legitimate irrespective of context or any independant standard?
brainpolice2 3 years ago
No. More anon.
azrienoch 3 years ago
If moral justification is subjective, what possible reason can one have to accept someone else's particular justification for a law?
brainpolice2 3 years ago
Standards of justification are argued for. Politicians are the ones that argue for them, who in turn are justified in arguing due to the fact that the system of government that brought them to their position was argued for. It was argued for by the founding fathers after years of arguing within the states by--get this--the people.
azrienoch 3 years ago
So arguementation, in and of itself, inherently justifies whatever comes about as a result?
brainpolice2 3 years ago
No, but there is no justification without it.
azrienoch 3 years ago
Just to repeat myself a bit, standards of justification are argued for. If we're looking for justification to be something more marvelous and trustworthy, we'll be perpetually disappointed.
azrienoch 3 years ago
I don't see what such a statement does to help clarify this question though. I don't see how it's relevant. Of course arguementation is a process that can indirectly convince people of various positions. What does such a point do to actually back up a particular position though? How does it make people who in no way ever explicitly endorsed the actions of others responsible for the actions of others (in this case, soldiers)?
brainpolice2 3 years ago
It doesn't. I'm not saying it does. In fact, I said moral justification is subjective, and I said standards of justification are argued for. Arguments don't form some mass conclusion, each person decides for themselves. And we can't expect more out of justification than that. So again, "unjust law" is a legal oxymoron. It only makes sense subjectively. If you wish to call a law unjust, fine. Argue for it. It's not automatically unjust.
azrienoch 3 years ago
But if we go by such a standard, then law must be assumed to be just before argumentation takes place. This seems odd to me, assuming a positive claim before argumentation can even take place. I find it strange that you entirely shift the burden of proof onto someone claiming injustice, while justice is simply assumed.
brainpolice2 3 years ago
Yes, that's the case NOW. It wasn't always that way, but now we're in this framework. You're welcome to argue for your moral standards, starting from the ground up. But you don't get an automatic equal footing with things that are far beyond in their process of being argued for.
azrienoch 3 years ago
can there be an informed debate without and informed populace...can a profoundly ignorant populace be the foundation for a just government?
CityzenJane 3 years ago
Not easily, no. Support education and political activism. I do. :)
Kikai93 3 years ago
Well, "informed" is a tricky word. I'm informed enough to know that much, but not informed enough to be able to say what it is to be informed. (In other words, yes. There *can*.)
azrienoch 3 years ago
On further reflection, yes it is possible in systems of government where the populace is not a significant factor in governance. In oligarchies or monarchies for instance, what matters is the ability of the monarch or governing body, their informed or uninformed status and whether or not they value "justice" and how they define justice. Whether or not the peasant is informed is irrelevant.
Kikai93 3 years ago
I can't justify a monarchy....even if it can justify itself....and as I am not about abstract forms but the practice or the attempt at self governance, im not all that interested in that digression... being not a peasant and all....;)
CityzenJane 3 years ago
Also, I think you're obfuscating something here. "The people" as such did not and do not uniformly consent to whatever the result happens to be in every respect. It's not as if the people all came to a mutual conclusion resulting from argumentation and lo and behold the state was formed, and lo and behold everything that follows from there on is consented to by everyone in perpetuity for future generations.
brainpolice2 3 years ago
The video is not to debate the state, but rather how the military functions under our present system of government and who is responsible for unjust wars and unjust policies. If you want to debate our government, make a video and I'm your huckleberry. :)
Kikai93 3 years ago
I'm merely responding to you and Azrienoch's defense of the military arm of the state, and what I consider to be your obfuscation of individual responsibility.
brainpolice2 3 years ago
It's not obfuscation of individual responsibility. We're speaking within the system, within the structure of normal, which is the easiest way to be understood.
azrienoch 3 years ago
I think it is an obfuscation of individual responsibility to say that everyone who exists in a particular society is somehow responsibile for the actions of a soldier which they did not necessarily overtly endorse as individuals. The responsibility is actually being externalized away from the individual actor, in this case the soldier. The responsibility is also being externalized away from the actual policy makers, in this case the legislators.
brainpolice2 3 years ago
This is something I've noticed of you and of others, that there is a tendency to think the individual is still an individual in a group. They are physically, yes, but the fact is we think and act differently in groups than we do alone. It's not an externalization as in a disassociation, but an externalization as in a social movement.
azrienoch 3 years ago
Yes.
Kikai93 3 years ago
An individual still has his functions, that is, moral judgement, and the capacity to act on said judgements. He is as much an indiviudal as anywhere else. We do get caught up in "collective" identities, however, since these functions still exist, absolute moral responsability still exists.
MatthewLeee 3 years ago
What moral tenet do you believe a soldier violates while serving honorably (not violating regulations, military justice, the law or the constitution) in Iraq?
And then further: Absolute moral responsibility to which subjective moral standard?
Kikai93 3 years ago
He first gives up his absolute free will to act morally or immorally by placing on himself an obligation to serve something other than the objective and completely separate from human whims morality. A soldier places himself in a position where his understanding of right and wrong, whatever that understanding may be, becomes subordinant to human will. This, in and of itself is a form of nihilism. However, I do understand the Non-Aggression Principle which I also adhere to, a soldier is bound...
MatthewLeee 3 years ago
") i like you.
CityzenJane 3 years ago
Obfuscating, perhaps. Simplifying, definitely. You're right. Not everyone gathered together to make these decisions. Not everyone can speak either, but we say (in simplification) that essentially everyone can. The people that came forward DID compromise to mutual agreement, and the people that didn't either agreed or kept basically silent, and nobody but the silent can be blamed for that.
azrienoch 3 years ago
I don't recall keeping silent. I vocally opposed the war when it was being proposed. I don't see how I could reasonably be assigned with responsiblity for the actions of soldiers that I have consistantly vocally opposed and have done nothing to overtly support. When it comes to the actual policy-making process, it is directly controled by a very small number of people, and I find it obfuscatory to place blame on literally everyone within society.
brainpolice2 3 years ago
Who puts those leaders (the very small number of people you spoke of) into their positions? When we elect representatives, it is to represent our interests, no? Hence the title?
Kikai93 3 years ago
For one thing, it does not follow that people consent to whatever the government happens to do once they vote for a politician. This does not describe how the system actually works, the politician does not inherently represent the people merely by being voted into office; they can theoretically do the opposite of what they said. Furthermore, there's also the people who didn't vote for the particular person or thing and those who didn't vote at all. So in no way is there any true representation.
brainpolice2 3 years ago
You're removing individual voter responsibility from the electoral process. The voter looks at the candidates, their rhetoric, how their record matches their rhetoric, how their present projects match their stated purposes and goals, etc. Then the voter votes for the candidate they feel best represents their interests. Then the voter makes their feelings known directly to the rep through letter writing, lobby and similar means concerning issues of importance to them. That is participation.
Kikai93 3 years ago
The individual voter can't be held responsible, since the individual voter cannot have an absolute effect on the process. I, for example, cannot determine who the next president is, so I cannot be held responsible for whoever occupies the office if I didn't vote for him, or even if I did.
MatthewLeee 3 years ago
Yet you seem to hold the individual soldier responsible for US foreign policy, when he himself cannot have an absolute effect on the process. Which way do you want it?
Kikai93 3 years ago
I said that soldiers are responsible for their enforcement of foriegn policy. They made the choice to surrender their free will to a body of men. They swore the oath of loyalty. His compliance with his orders was his original choice.
MatthewLeee 3 years ago
And you can freely surrender your citizenship and then have absolutely no responsibility as a citizen (voter). :)
If your argument is "he doesn't have to be a soldier" then your argument must also be "I don't have to be a citizen."
Kikai93 3 years ago
The acceptance of your citizenship is consent to the terms of the social contract. You can rescind the terms at any time, as you are under no legal obligation to maintain your status as a citizen. An 'exit clause, if you will.
cehbeach 3 years ago
There is no "we" it is a collective abstraction with little relevence to reality.
MatthewLeee 3 years ago
I wasn't silent about the war either. I'm still not. Unfortunately, the silence I was just talking about was about the founding of this government. We weren't around, and the consensus is that we keep doing what we were doing. We can disagree with the masses, but you and I aren't actually doing anything to change it. No movement has been large enough to make an impression. Until that time, we're just complainers that also agree with the masses.
azrienoch 3 years ago
The military executes the will of the people as elucidated by the elected representatives of the people. The people can influence policy and individual soldiers as citizens retain the right to participate. At the end of the debate, when policy is set, constitutional and legal, it is the soldier's sworn duty to obey the orders of those appointed over them. If you don't want soldiers engaged in unjust wars, fight the wars before they begin and unjust policies before they are instituted.
Kikai93 3 years ago
It is a misnomer to assume that "the will of the people" is being executed by the military. That is the ideal of how it's supposed to work, not how it actually does work. There's also the problem that "the people" have no such uniform will. Also, I do oppose the wars and unjust polices before they are instituted.
brainpolice2 3 years ago
Uniform consent by every citizen is not required by our system of government. I am glad that you participate in our political system though, that is what I am advocating. If you don't like something, work to fix it or stop it from being instituted. Don't just bitch. :) Good on you.
Kikai93 3 years ago
Also, you're making an argument for a broken system. How does "the system is broken" translate into "I don't like the troops and hold them responsible for the policies of a broken system"?
Kikai93 3 years ago