Jump to content

National Guard: At least Canada is in N America...


ashw_justin

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The US Military would seem to fit most if not all of the criteria cited here for the definition of a cult.

 

The baisic tenants of the US military has been in place for over 200 years. There are reasons that soldiers are required to act the way they do. These are not traits reserved for the US military; these are global tenants of militaries in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you guys really that bad at reading comprehension? I have written, at least four times now, that we don't and can't allow him to choose his consequences. The plain fact is that he did, however.

 

So, what praytell is your position in the matter Matt? Devil's advocate as I had assumed earlier?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US Military would seem to fit most if not all of the criteria cited here for the definition of a cult.

 

That's just silly.

 

Yeah, after reading them again, I think you could make a case that the US military fits all ten. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is my position on what? I have said that he must be accountable under the law. I criticized his position and agreed with you that he was justifying his actions by saying the mission was wrong, not necessarily that he himself had been ordered to commit or partake in any specific atrocities.

 

I have been trying to get you to admit that there may be some circumstance where refusing to follow orders or perhaps desertion would be justified. After two pages you admit that refusing to follow the orders of a drunk commanding officer would be justified. What other scenario might you imagine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is my position on what? I have said that he must be accountable under the law. I criticized his position and agreed with you that he was justifying his actions by saying the mission was wrong, not necessarily that he himself had been ordered to commit or partake in any specific atrocities.

 

I have been trying to get you to admit that there may be some circumstance where refusing to follow orders or perhaps desertion would be justified. After two pages you admit that refusing to follow the orders of a drunk commanding officer would be justified. What other scenario might you imagine?

 

did you read my last response to you matt? I think not. I clearly stated that breaking the law was not part of one's oath. This clearly shows that following orders is not a carte blanche to circumvent the law (ala nuremburg) but rather a way to ensure order and more often than not, prevent attrocities like the ones you seem to be so fond of stating that officers like to order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US Military would seem to fit most if not all of the criteria cited here for the definition of a cult.

 

That's just silly.

 

Yeah, after reading them again, I think you could make a case that the US military fits all ten. Thanks.

 

You could, but not based on any foundation of reason or logic. I, however, could not since I would be employing both reason and logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite right, Scott, you did acknowledge that there are situations where one should not follow orders. I had to ask the same question several different ways, but you finally did cede that point.

 

How about Lynde England? Had she refused to abused prisoners at Abu Ghraib, I'm sure you would argue that she should have been subject to court martial. However, assuming that you believe the activities that she engaged in were illegal (you do agree with that, don't you?), would she have been "justified" in refusing to participate? In any sense of the word? Would she have been entitled to some kind of Nuremberg principled defense in your mind?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More undigested abstractions. Why not throw in some glory, honor, sacrifice, etc? You could make your own recruitment video.

 

About what I would expect from you. However, now that you brought them up, what is wrong with 'honor' and 'sacrifice'? You Lefties preach individual sacrifice for the good of the collective. How is a soldier's willingness to sacrifice any different? Further, how is 'honor' now a bad word?

Edited by canyondweller
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What? These notions have been used to underpin every form of nationalistic militarism from the Roman Empire to Japanese neofascism. You just happen to believe your particular form, the American one, has some claim to exceptionalism and truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, Scott, play along now:

 

could there be any circumstances where one might be justified in "going back on their word?"

 

no.

 

From a well-known researcher on cults:

Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader.

 

1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.

 

2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

 

3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.

 

4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.

 

5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.

 

6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.

 

7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.

 

8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".

 

9. The group/leader is always right.

 

10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

--from the Ross Institute

 

 

 

so what you are saying is that communism is a cult? Ok, point taken, but lets get back on track junior.

 

LOL. A Marxist lecturing on cults. :lmao:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, Scott, play along now:

 

could there be any circumstances where one might be justified in "going back on their word?"

 

no.

 

From a well-known researcher on cults:

Ten warning signs of a potentially unsafe group/leader.

 

1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.

 

2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

 

3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.

 

4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.

 

5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.

 

6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.

 

7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.

 

8. Followers feel they can never be "good enough".

 

9. The group/leader is always right.

 

10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing "truth" or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

--from the Ross Institute

 

 

 

so what you are saying is that communism is a cult? Ok, point taken, but lets get back on track junior.

 

LOL. A Marxist lecturing on cults. :lmao:

 

If anything, it'd have been a small "m", marxian. But Spray has pushed me straight to nihilism. :crazy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What? These notions have been used to underpin every form of nationalistic militarism from the Roman Empire to Japanese neofascism. You just happen to believe your particular form, the American one, has some claim to exceptionalism and truth.

 

So, you're not going to answer the question, then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More undigested abstractions. Why not throw in some glory, honor, sacrifice, etc? You could make your own recruitment video.

 

About what I would expect from you. However, now that you brought them up, what is wrong with 'honor' and 'sacrifice'? You Lefties preach individual sacrifice for the good of the collective. How is a soldier's willingness to sacrifice any different? Further, how is 'honor' now a bad word?

 

The problem with "honor" and "sacrifice" they're basically lofty-sounding abstractions designed for the parents of dead children and inscriptions on tombstones, to give the living some meaning for senseless waste. They have no meaning whatsoever in and of themselves: the same language is used by kamikazis, Prussians, Commies, Doughboys, Mongols, or Marines. The Nazi SS talked loads of this stuff, but through history's lens were they honorable and virtuous? Submission and sacrifice to the State is the essence of fascism but it's always dressed in the very same terms you unquestioningly swallow. Any "leftie" worth his salt would never accept your premise about "preaching individual sacrifice for the good of the collective". The ones I like tend to be a bit more historically literate and less prone to razzle-dazzle marketing campaigns dressed up as patriotism. Finally, "honor" is a bad word when it's used as first to charm impressionable boys and then as ideological cover to mask national chauvinism and belligerence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More undigested abstractions. Why not throw in some glory, honor, sacrifice, etc? You could make your own recruitment video.

 

About what I would expect from you. However, now that you brought them up, what is wrong with 'honor' and 'sacrifice'? You Lefties preach individual sacrifice for the good of the collective. How is a soldier's willingness to sacrifice any different? Further, how is 'honor' now a bad word?

 

The problem with "honor" and "sacrifice" they're basically lofty-sounding abstractions designed for the parents of dead children and inscriptions on tombstones, to give the living some meaning for senseless waste. They have no meaning whatsoever in and of themselves: the same language is used by kamikazis, Prussians, Commies, Doughboys, Mongols, or Marines. The Nazi SS talked loads of this stuff, but through history's lens were they honorable and virtuous? Submission and sacrifice to the State is the essence of fascism but it's always dressed in the very same terms you unquestioningly swallow. Any "leftie" worth his salt would never accept your premise about "preaching individual sacrifice for the good of the collective". The ones I like tend to be a bit more historically literate and less prone to razzle-dazzle marketing campaigns dressed up as patriotism. Finally, "honor" is a bad word when it's used as first to charm impressionable boys and then as ideological cover to mask national chauvinism and belligerence.

 

Denying the existence of honor is a long tradition of those lacking that trait. Honor is real and I have seen it personally. If less people would forget what honor was, this world might not

be so bad.

 

Things like Pride, Duty, Self Sacrifice and Honor should not be bad words. They are ideals that we MUST instill in our children; not try to erase.

 

Perhaps the reason you are a nhilist is that you have nothing greater than yourself to believe in than a washed up philosophy that killed more people than the plague.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More undigested abstractions. Why not throw in some glory, honor, sacrifice, etc? You could make your own recruitment video.

 

About what I would expect from you. However, now that you brought them up, what is wrong with 'honor' and 'sacrifice'? You Lefties preach individual sacrifice for the good of the collective. How is a soldier's willingness to sacrifice any different? Further, how is 'honor' now a bad word?

 

The problem with "honor" and "sacrifice" they're basically lofty-sounding abstractions designed for the parents of dead children and inscriptions on tombstones, to give the living some meaning for senseless waste. They have no meaning whatsoever in and of themselves: the same language is used by kamikazis, Prussians, Commies, Doughboys, Mongols, or Marines. The Nazi SS talked loads of this stuff, but through history's lens were they honorable and virtuous? Submission and sacrifice to the State is the essence of fascism but it's always dressed in the very same terms you unquestioningly swallow. Any "leftie" worth his salt would never accept your premise about "preaching individual sacrifice for the good of the collective". The ones I like tend to be a bit more historically literate and less prone to razzle-dazzle marketing campaigns dressed up as patriotism. Finally, "honor" is a bad word when it's used as first to charm impressionable boys and then as ideological cover to mask national chauvinism and belligerence.

 

Denying the existence of honor is a long tradition of those lacking that trait. Honor is real and I have seen it personally. If less people would forget what honor was, this world might not

be so bad.

 

Things like Pride, Duty, Self Sacrifice and Honor should not be bad words. They are ideals that we MUST instill in our children; not try to erase.

 

Perhaps the reason you are a nhilist is that you have nothing greater than yourself to believe in than a washed up philosophy that killed more people than the plague.

 

My point is not that these things don't exist, it's that the relationships between the abstract ideas and what they're realistically in service to need to be examined. I think people can be honorable, exhibit virtuous qualities, etc. but that killing people in the service to and for the benefit of the State (much less invading and occupying Iraq) doesn't meet the criteria.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my definition includes, but isn't limited to, valor in battle

 

sometimes honor may be not going to war, which is sometimes the more appropriate choice.

 

honor and nationalism have definitely been "misused" in the past (nazis is a case i think would all agree on), but then that would depend on your point of view. perhaps you could only view it as "misused" in that the problem was at the top (hitler and his party), and that the concepts of honor and nationalism are impossible to misuse. it seems to me if you drape it in a flag, honor takes on the subjective baggage you associate with that nation. is it possible to view valor outside of the baggage? i'm sure some people can appreciate the code and valor of a kamikaze pilot, but i'm sure those on the carriers that were their target had a different point of view.

 

i don't think honor is a bad thing, it is certainly a noble aspiration, but it is also useful to see the same trait in the enemy and recognize that it is not something we have a patent on (other than the honor the represented by the American flag)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't think honor is a bad thing, it is certainly a noble aspiration, but it is also useful to see the same trait in the enemy and recognize that it is not something we have a patent on (other than the honor the represented by the American flag)

 

There is no honor in this enemy.

 

-He uses children to fight for him.

 

-He uses women and children to sheil his attack knowing full well we will not fire back.

 

-He uses fear to persuade civilians to help him.

 

-He uses indescriminate ordinances.

 

-He detonates ordinances MEANT for civilians.

 

-His ultimate aim is genocide.

 

-He fights to ensure that another country remains oppressed.

 

-He fights for the destruction of modernity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...