Flu and other goodies

[imperator03]

You have made some good points there Imp, and yes H1N1 is just a different but more virulent form of influenza but influenza is still an annual pandemic. It still serves to be the most deadly pandemic, malaria not so much as normal influenza kills over 35,000 americans each year even with flu shots. No, it didn't scare me, you forget or are unaware that I have been army airborne infantry for 20 years and have experienced or seen damn near everything, alot that I didn't care for Yes, I understand that people in general, maybe especially politicians do things mainly for themselves, not always, but possibly a majority of the time and will use/work events to forward their agendas but I DO NOT believe that a few in our government would purposely drag things out in order to push an agenda, that takes a majority of capitol hill to make happen and typically only a personal pay raise can acquire that much dedication from so many. Also, you don't have to believe in all conspiracies to be a conspiracist, you only need to believe in one, so by your own admission, I was right in my assumption haha but I do enjoy hearing your viewpoint though, it's different.

It doesn't matter what you've seen or what you've done for how long. When you see a little kid on life support or in the hospital suffering from something you can't do anything about, you get scared. You may never admit it, but you do get scared. Some people just have little outbursts of anger to cover their fear.

You might be interested to know that there is a type of vaccine about to go to market that attacks to protein on the interior of the influenza virus, which could make the flu non-virulent, as mutations in these sites change far less than the outer protein binding sites.

www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/02/07/universal.flu.vaccine.research/index.html

Another interesting development is the creation of flu vaccines from human cells; not chicken eggs, as is currently done.

www.physorg.com/news/2011-02-cell-based-flu-shot-current-vaccine.html

When I say people do things mainly for themselves, it's mostly an observation on how people have personal likes and dislikes; not a comment on selfishness or anything like that. I like broccoli and my fiance likes okra. So when we go out she gets okra and I get broccoli. The value we place on those items is different. I'd pay more to get broccoli and she'd pay more to get okra. That's what I mean.

One thing we all share is a need for social advancement. Now this could mean different things. Mother Theresa, for example, has a very different idea about social advancement than, say, Donald Trump. You also have to know something about how bureaucracies work. Not only being in the military, but being elite, you might not have a great understanding of how bureaucracies work. Elite units often have an easier time getting beans and bullets than non-elite units. Then again, I could be wrong and you worked in supply or something. If so, I'm sorry you had to endure that. I've heard stories.

Ludwig von Mises wrote what I consider a seminal work on the nature of bureaucracy in a book entitles, appropriately enough, Bureaucracy: mises.org/books/bureaucracy.pdf

If you think we still have Constitutional protections against the federal government, you need to read up more on the Progressive era and guys like Woodrow Wilson and FDR. And not the crap they sell you in high school either. Wilson was the visionary, FDR was the guy who made it happen. Kind of like our version of Lenin and Stalin. If you think courts still protect us, research administrative law courts, they were set up specifically to do an end run around trial juries.

Read up on the Federalist and the anti-Federalist papers. The latter will literally send chills down your spine as they pretty much laid out a blueprint for how the Federalists would turn this republic into an autocracy.

Although I have a great many issues with the government of the US, never think I have an issue with the founding principles of this nation; freedom and liberty. You'll not find a greater proponent of those ideals. The US is still the leader in freedom and liberty for all, we're still the shining city on the hill for the wretched masses laboring under oppression and darkness. Still, night will fall even here unless we get our heads straight and change our course.

[vault72]

Man, you have a silver tongue are you in politics And yes I was aware of the current progress in the area of flu vaccines, and no I'm not supply but I am in an elite unit but even we have budget limits but others do not. Beans and bullets haven't been an issue since I joined in 1990 but other equipment, the newer more advanced stuff has been prior to 9/11. Then again since the war on terror began we have been given so much new stuff that we usually don't get a chance to fully figure out some equipment before it is being replaced with another then again we get some stuff straight out of sci-fi movies and we never use it it just piles up in our storage bays. I used to get pissed off at the fiscal wastes prevalent in the military as I was the materials waste and abuse officer for my company at the time. As far as law goes,being military I am subject to an additional set of laws, the Uniformed Code of Military Justice where I can lose pay, rank and personal time or freedoms for rolling my eyes while a superior talks to me or if I am late to work before I actually have to be at work hell you can actually be imprisoned on here say with no actual evidence required. That and I also am not entitled to the right of peaceful assembly or freedom of speech until the end of my service obligation so I'll admit that my viewpoint is askew compared to civilians where as a result of a survey done amongst the scholared such as teachers and professors where they were asked if they had to give up one amendment, which one would it be, they overwhelmingly said it would be the 2nd, the right to bear arms, now if you ask soldiers, it would probably be overwhelmingly for peaceful assembly or freedom of speech, because we do without it and tend to lean towards aggressive action to solve an issue, and I am referring to volunteer soldiers not draftees. It's all about ones perspectives and interpretations as one reads a manifesto written over a hundred years ago about a groups plot to ruin a system from within and another just sees it as a historical document not as a proven current agenda, hell with attacks lately the constitution may find itself becoming just a historical document only but as a soldier I swore an oath first to the constitution against enemies both foreign and domestic before all else. Sorry, I went off on a rant again and lost my original train of thought.

[imperator03]

Don't worry about it, you've got good instincts. Funny story. My dad, a lifelong Republican 20 year vet, took one of those online "Who should you vote for" questionnaires and it said libertarian. My dad has good instincts too.

Although I am and have always been a civvie, I've had plenty of experience with bureaucracies and other government insanities. Hell I used to work for the state Department of Mental Health and I'd never convince someone to go to them for help. You have no idea how badly they'd screw you up. Luckily I know some very good and dedicated people who would do right by you. Sometimes it really is about who you know.

No I'm not in politics, I have too much respect for myself and integrity. What I do is read a lot; and I mean a lot of history, philosophy and economics. The good news is that much of it isn't hard, although Mises wrote for intellectuals and it can be a bit of a slog to get through, and once you internalize it; it's pretty easy to explain to others.

I'm a bit surprised and disheartened that you haven't had much training in history, especially military history. Look up David Hackworth and you'll get a pretty good idea of where I get my economical thinking about the military from. That man was hardcore and a true patriot. Unfortunately, he was drummed out of the service for being a truth teller, but spent a good part of the rest of his life exposing the stuff that got our boys and girls killed in the 1990's. If you can find it, I'd recommend Hazardous Duty.

You might even consider reading up on guys like Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, Eisenhower, Rommel, Caesar and other great generals through the ages. Heck even fiction writers like David Drake, David Weber and John Ringo are enjoyable reads and have given me, at least, an idea of what it's like to serve.

[vault72]

Actually I have, military history that is my favorite being The Battle of Midway and the rest being unit history. I've read Sun Tzu's The Art of War many times and on the great generals since the Roman empire but mainly tactics and training techniques, things that would potentially help keep my men and myself alive. As far as history goes, the U.S. education system on the subject is criminal, I like Howard Zinn's " A People's History of the United States" and any works on the peloponnesian wars. As far as our boys and girls in the 1990's, that would have to be one of our top 5 least deadly decades for service members I know I joined in 1990. I've read some of David Weber, John Ringo and David Drake, usually ex-marines or cold war military jargon filled series with some neat ideas for weapons systems, which I love by the way, but my favorite fiction war book has to be The Engine and I didn't care to much for Heinlein's works but I did like the Ender's Game series of books by Orson Scott Card at least to the 4th book after that I felt it was rehashing to much old info. Sorry, I ranted again, a by-product of a traumatic brain injury

[imperator03]

Mar 15, 2011 1:44:49 GMT -5 vault72 said:

Actually I have, military history that is my favorite being The Battle of Midway and the rest being unit history. I've read Sun Tzu's The Art of War many times and on the great generals since the Roman empire but mainly tactics and training techniques, things that would potentially help keep my men and myself alive. As far as history goes, the U.S. education system on the subject is criminal, I like Howard Zinn's " A People's History of the United States" and any works on the peloponnesian wars. As far as our boys and girls in the 1990's, that would have to be one of our top 5 least deadly decades for service members I know I joined in 1990. I've read some of David Weber, John Ringo and David Drake, usually ex-marines or cold war military jargon filled series with some neat ideas for weapons systems, which I love by the way, but my favorite fiction war book has to be The Engine and I didn't care to much for Heinlein's works but I did like the Ender's Game series of books by Orson Scott Card at least to the 4th book after that I felt it was rehashing to much old info. Sorry, I ranted again, a by-product of a traumatic brain injury

I hear you. My dad got out in 1993, mostly because of the way Clinton was trying to socially engineer the military. It's a shame because he's never really found anything he likes as much as being a Marine. According to Drake, he had a breakdown when the Cold War ended, as he figured there would be no market for military sci-fi. Guess he couldn't see the forest for the trees, the way I see it military sci-fi has never been better.

Interestingly enough, the military comes pretty close to espousing a worldview that closely mirrors that of the Founders. Well, they don't generally espouse a non-interventionist worldview, but that might be expecting a bit much as most of the military is still stuck in the mindset of WW II era strategy and tactics.

One of the more interesting concepts I've come across is the idea of 4th generation warfare. Most of it is bunk, but the core idea to take away from that view of warfare is that more and more combat power is moving lower and lower in the hierarchy. A modern soldiers combat power and effectiveness is far greater than say his grandfather in WW II or his great-grandfather in WW I. That's what makes groups like al Qaeda interesting in an intellectual sense. One of their strengths is that they fight, well, much like our Revolutionary War soldiers.

There's an old story that a guy who invented a breech loading rifle once had Washington in his sights, but refused to fire because it was ungentlemanly. If he wanted to end the insurrection, that's exactly what he would have done. We should have done something similar to bin Laden after 9/11. Ron Paul put forth a suggestion that we issues Letters of Marquis against the terrorists and wait for someone to collect. Given the issues we're still having in Iraq and Afghanistan, that might not have been a bad strategy. That's something straight out of Sun Tzu, he was a great believer in economy of force.

Unfortunately we have a military geared to fight a world war, with budgets to justify and an entire industrial complex with political clout to make it happen. So what we wind up having is a military that is bloated, inefficient and not geared to fight the right enemy. It really doesn't look like we've learned much since the days of Vietnam.

[vault72]

Actually we did learn, it just took 5 years into the conflict for them to figure it out, just look at the kill/death ratios there are whole fire fights where over 300 insurgents are killed and not a single U.S. is killed. But yea, we've had Bin Laden in our sights several times but due to the potential for collateral damage they weren't given the go ahead to engage, we are to gentleman-like

[imperator03]

Mar 15, 2011 19:11:23 GMT -5 vault72 said:

Actually we did learn, it just took 5 years into the conflict for them to figure it out, just look at the kill/death ratios there are whole fire fights where over 300 insurgents are killed and not a single U.S. is killed. But yea, we've had Bin Laden in our sights several times but due to the potential for collateral damage they weren't given the go ahead to engage, we are to gentleman-like

The kill ratio can be in your favor and you can still lose the war. In fact, I'd say when you start using kill ratio as your top metric, you've already started to lose.

Then you have to factor in collateral damage to the state waging the war. Few people think about how wars are paid for, but Sun Tzu knew that if you weren't careful you'd bankrupt your nation paying for war. All the economic shenanigans that went on to pay for the war contributed directly to the housing boom and bust as well as the general weakness of the economy today. Given that defense contractors are about as bad as slurping from the public trough as government union workers are, I'd not expect that to change anytime soon.

One has to wonder how we'll meet our military obligations with $100+ a barrel oil prices.

[vault72]

And that newly formed governments are as corrupt as they come, a majority of the theater budget was to fixing Iraqi infrastructure and paying/equiping Iraq police and military. There was a while there when the Iraqi military were driving around in better equipment then we were and they really didn't leave their compounds. Actually its when public support is in your opposition's favor that you have started to lose. As long as public opinion is split and the kill/death ratio is high in your favor, in time your opposition is reduced to an unoperational level, like a classic game of marbles. As far as oil goes, the military isn't dependant on the same oil civilians use to fuel their SUVs, we have our own reserve of cruder fuels. So when the last drop of gas leaves the pumps at your local gas station, the government has plenty of fuel for themselves to last years as it comes from government wells but supplemented by other sources for pennies per barrel, the real tariff, black dollars. It's because we have so much oil reserved that we design and build fuel whore vehicles like the Abrams tank that gets about a mile to the gallon, almost as well as a personal H2O Hummer Our military spending isn't the largest of our fiscal budget, it's government entitlements supporting the welfare state. I'm still trying to figure out why we give billions in foriegn aid a year to places like France who aren't even in NATO and where we don't have bases, I understand Germany, because we have bases there, but France? They veto damn near everything we try to do in the U.N. and won't let us refuel over their airspace, some ally. We need to go back to pay as you go fiscal responsibilities like Clinton had. At least then we had a 500 billion dollar a year surplus and would have eradicated our deficit in a matter of a few more years. But alas, with the entitlement of medicare 'D' we'll become bankrupt spending our entire GNP to pay for people's recurring medicine perscriptions by 2050.

[imperator03]

Mar 16, 2011 4:09:15 GMT -5 vault72 said:

And that newly formed governments are as corrupt as they come, a majority of the theater budget was to fixing Iraqi infrastructure and paying/equiping Iraq police and military. There was a while there when the Iraqi military were driving around in better equipment then we were and they really didn't leave their compounds. Actually its when public support is in your opposition's favor that you have started to lose. As long as public opinion is split and the kill/death ratio is high in your favor, in time your opposition is reduced to an unoperational level, like a classic game of marbles. As far as oil goes, the military isn't dependant on the same oil civilians use to fuel their SUVs, we have our own reserve of cruder fuels. So when the last drop of gas leaves the pumps at your local gas station, the government has plenty of fuel for themselves to last years as it comes from government wells but supplemented by other sources for pennies per barrel, the real tariff, black dollars. It's because we have so much oil reserved that we design and build fuel whore vehicles like the Abrams tank that gets about a mile to the gallon, almost as well as a personal H2O Hummer Our military spending isn't the largest of our fiscal budget, it's government entitlements supporting the welfare state. I'm still trying to figure out why we give billions in foriegn aid a year to places like France who aren't even in NATO and where we don't have bases, I understand Germany, because we have bases there, but France? They veto damn near everything we try to do in the U.N. and won't let us refuel over their airspace, some ally. We need to go back to pay as you go fiscal responsibilities like Clinton had. At least then we had a 500 billion dollar a year surplus and would have eradicated our deficit in a matter of a few more years. But alas, with the entitlement of medicare 'D' we'll become bankrupt spending our entire GNP to pay for people's recurring medicine perscriptions by 2050.

Which just makes my point against all governments. At it's core governments are about redistributing wealth. They take from society at large and give to those who whore themselves out for political favor. It varies from nation to nation, a political whore looks very different in a democracy than that of a dictatorship; but in the end they're both whores.

Public support is a function of perceived benefit. After the invasion we scored quite a bit of that benefit, but squandered it by going after oil refineries and fields while the average Iraqi standard of living was dropping even further, which took some doing as they already were a Third World country due to the embargo. That's where guys like al Sadr stepped in and began building a political force by offering food to the Iraqi people. He, and others like him, were able to gain goodwill by looking after the basic needs of the Iraqi people after the invasion. Those guys, unlike our military commanders, understood the way to gain public support.

Yeah I know all about the Strategic Reserve and all the stockpiling that's been done to service the military. But, that stuff is all still non-renewable. And military vehicles, by and large, are gas hogs that even the biggest civilian SUV can't hope to match. So you'll drain through the military reserve far faster than civilians would. Plus you underestimate our politicians. We already have idiots calling for tapping the reserve in order to bring gas prices down. As if that's a long-term solution. Remember when Clinton tapped the fund in order to bring prices down to help Gore get elected? If it came down to making sure the troops had the fuel they needed and some kind of boondoggle in order to get reelected, don't think that your precious reserve would be off limits.

You design fuel whores like the Abrams because the defense contractors who design and build them don't have an incentive to think about supplies. When they were designed, it was assumed that the military would have all the energy resources it needed. Which is another benefit raghead outfits have that we don't. They can cherry-pick the best equipment, while we're only allowed to use what our domestic industry puts forward. Hackworth talks about how in Croatia, the Croats were using French Milan missiles. He saw what they did to Serb tanks and figured they were better than anything we had in our arsenal at the time. But our troops didn't get it because it wasn't built by us. Stupid.

As for why we give money to other countries, let me introduce you to the concept of the welfare-warfare state. You are a member of the warfare part of the equation, while, say, poohan is a member of the welfare part of the equation. You're a member of the warfare coalition not just because you're part of the military, but because you espouse "traditional conservative" values. You see the point of a strong military, NATO, alliances etc. Poohan, on the other hand, sees the point of social programs designed to uplift people at home. Both sides miss the essential questions. Is what we're spending money on the best way to do things.

Until and unless you reject both sides of that argument, you'll never see a clear path to fixing our problems.

[vault72]

Well, I don't agree with how the welfare system is run but I understand it's purpose. I also don't agree with the size or composition of our military or the poor choice of equipment. There have been generals and groups within the military fighting the lobbyists and their political poodles to change the main fire arm of the armed forces since I came in service in the 1990's, the weapon is sub par when compared to weapons designed in the 80's let alone now. Since you only stated 2 sides, then you must fall into the welfare state understanding or rejecting both doesn't change which part you belong to and being in one does not make a person exclusive to just that one. I know soldiers who are on food stamps so he is able to be in both at the same time. Just because someone isn't on some any welfare program now, doesn't mean they have never been or will ever be so no matter how much we like or dislike the idea, agree or disagree with how it operates, we are all still a part of the welfare state and if you pay taxes...........then you are paying for the welfare state. As far as are we spending money on the best way to do things? Hhhheeeeelllllllllll Nnnnnnooooooo!!!!! I've been wanting to hunt down lobbyists since I was a teenager and had many a day dream of one day laws were emplaced forcing those in the position and those with the ability to actually do things for the sake of the people and the nation instead of their pocket books but apparently as evident having hundreds of millions in your bank account isn't enough for many of them. I have always felt that we should return to how we were just prior to WWII, back before as a nation we lost our innoccence. Who knows, with the way things are going we may return to a similar state by default or ruin however you look at it

[imperator03]

Mar 18, 2011 5:59:34 GMT -5 vault72 said:

Well, I don't agree with how the welfare system is run but I understand it's purpose. I also don't agree with the size or composition of our military or the poor choice of equipment. There have been generals and groups within the military fighting the lobbyists and their political poodles to change the main fire arm of the armed forces since I came in service in the 1990's, the weapon is sub par when compared to weapons designed in the 80's let alone now. Since you only stated 2 sides, then you must fall into the welfare state understanding or rejecting both doesn't change which part you belong to and being in one does not make a person exclusive to just that one. I know soldiers who are on food stamps so he is able to be in both at the same time. Just because someone isn't on some any welfare program now, doesn't mean they have never been or will ever be so no matter how much we like or dislike the idea, agree or disagree with how it operates, we are all still a part of the welfare state and if you pay taxes...........then you are paying for the welfare state. As far as are we spending money on the best way to do things? Hhhheeeeelllllllllll Nnnnnnooooooo!!!!! I've been wanting to hunt down lobbyists since I was a teenager and had many a day dream of one day laws were emplaced forcing those in the position and those with the ability to actually do things for the sake of the people and the nation instead of their pocket books but apparently as evident having hundreds of millions in your bank account isn't enough for many of them. I have always felt that we should return to how we were just prior to WWII, back before as a nation we lost our innoccence. Who knows, with the way things are going we may return to a similar state by default or ruin however you look at it

Does it sound like I fall into the welfare state? There is a third way but it is not considered because it would do away with both the welfare and warfare parts of the state. At least you understand that tax money is the problem, although you can't scapegoat me for paying taxes. It's not like any of us have a choice. We pay taxes or we go to jail, not much of a choice. That is one power no private individual, organization or group has. They can't force you to do stuff. Which is why I much prefer things like the military, charity, etc. in private rather than public hands.

Understand this. No politician particularly cares about you any more than whether or not you can help them get reelected. After that, they pay attention to the politically connected with money and everyone else can go hang. One of the big reasons I never went military was because I couldn't stand the idea of being sent to fight somewhere we had no business being. If was were to serve, it would be to protect the US, not part of some politicians bid for power or prestige.

[vault72]

If your scared say your scared That's how we roll in the military, you man up. That's an excuse people have used to convince themselves that they aren't scared for generations. If you can't count on someone then there is a calling for it, what makes you think any of us will believe you'll come running when it hits our soil? Those are usually the ones that are the majority populace compliant with the laws of the invading army who will only make a gesture of hostility towards the enemy when their immediate family is threatened while the rest of us put everyone on our backs and carry you, we do grow tired of it. You think we like doing back to back deployments cause people are to scared to join? You think we like not seeing our kids but once per year? Stop with that excuse it has been used to death, literally, same with the "I have to much respect for myself to be a politician" I've heard it to much, stand up and try and make a difference or sit down and keep quiet. I like you Imp I really do, but sometimes people need a kick in the butt to get them going, tough love, that's how we get people up and ready to face the hell that is war and the world around them to try and ensure that they are successful in the military and it also carries over very well into the civilian world.

[imperator03]

Mar 20, 2011 18:14:45 GMT -5 vault72 said:

If your scared say your scared That's how we roll in the military, you man up. That's an excuse people have used to convince themselves that they aren't scared for generations. If you can't count on someone then there is a calling for it, what makes you think any of us will believe you'll come running when it hits our soil? Those are usually the ones that are the majority populace compliant with the laws of the invading army who will only make a gesture of hostility towards the enemy when their immediate family is threatened while the rest of us put everyone on our backs and carry you, we do grow tired of it. You think we like doing back to back deployments cause people are to scared to join? You think we like not seeing our kids but once per year? Stop with that excuse it has been used to death, literally, same with the "I have to much respect for myself to be a politician" I've heard it to much, stand up and try and make a difference or sit down and keep quiet. I like you Imp I really do, but sometimes people need a kick in the butt to get them going, tough love, that's how we get people up and ready to face the hell that is war and the world around them to try and ensure that they are successful in the military and it also carries over very well into the civilian world.

Maning up, as you put it is being afraid and still doing it. I'm sure it gets easier the more you do it, but we've all got that little self preservation or empathy thing going on. Unless, of course, you're a psychopath. So far as I've been able to tell psychopaths don't feel much of anything.

"When it hits our soil" is the military equivalent of the bogeyman. Ever read up on Clausewitz? Quite a bit of stuff he talked about was wrong and led to the massive deaths in WW I, but one thing he got right was that supplies are one of the more critical things when it comes to conducting military operations. Who in the world can get an army 3000 miles from home and continually supply it while conducting field operations? Us. That's about it. We're taking on ragheads and look at how much it's costing us to do that. How much more do you think it will cost some invader to try to invade and pacify the US. Good luck pacifying places like Texas and Appalachia.

What you're most likely talking about are dudes like al Qaeda. There's no good reason that we should not have had bin Laden's head on a stick on the front lawn of the White House several months after 9/11. Instead we had armed forces who had to defend why we spend so much money on defense and can't seem to keep people from crashing planes into buildings. The only way they know how to do that is to send in divisions of troops when our best bet would have been to arrange a snatch and grab, while selectively killing their operatives in the field.

There would have been no housing bubble, no threat of hyperinflation, no 20%+ unemployment. Bin Laden gone, al Qaeda gone and the US still a major power. Instead we're on life support economically, fighting 3 (!) wars, with a citizenry who's going to revolt once they figure out how worthless their money is and how they won't be able to feed their kids.

There are people standing up and trying. Governor Christie in NJ and Scott Walker in WI for starters. I don't count anyone in Washington because they aren't maning up and fixing the problem, they're letting the scumbags on the other side control the debate. Meanwhile there are some Republicans who like the status quo just fine. That scumbag Lindsey Graham comes to mind.

How can you talk about tough love when you can't see what's coming down the line? I don't blame you for not seeing, hell I didn't understand how bad things were until a few years ago. It's not just about $5 gas, it's the fact that the value of our money is going to approach zero. You think dudes like al Qaeda are our biggest problem? No way. All great civilizations have fallen from the inside, the rot they do to themselves, not from outside forces. The barbarians who took out Rome would never have been able to, had the Empire not wasted itself in civil war. We're rapidly destroying ourselves from within.

It's not that I don't want to get invovled, it's that the system is set up to resist any real change. Who controls the electoral process? The "Republican and Democratic parties. Do you really think they haven't rigged the game to benefit themselves and disallow any real alternatives to them? The Tea Party is a start and i"m surprised they did so well, but it might be that it's too little too late. I'm not asking you to believe me, just wait and watch. A year from now things will look very different than they do today.

[vault72]

You must have taken philosophy in college as you debate in a circle, alot of info but not really answering the question instead trying to create other arguement points irrelevent of the main discussion point, unless you consider that the table is rigged against change so just screw it and don't play the game as your basis for an answer? That's sheep / defeatist talk and as I stated, either try and change things or sit down and be quiet, you only can complain with authority if you are trying to make a difference or tried and failed but to have never tried at all lends no credibility to your arguements, your just rehashing what those who have or are trying have stated. Your own statement how IF an invader lands on U.S. soil is the bogeyman IE... a rare probability is a cop out plea then you are right, its a re-statement against your claim that you would fight if it came to protecting the U.S. which you yourself have stated so an invasion is really the only way unless you consider the attacks of 9/11 in which case you should have enlisted then but didn't, so you are ridiculing your own excuse, good job proving my point that no one is buying your excuse due to it's lack of credibility by proxy of probability as the standard coward's cop out plea to serving in the Armed Forces. Of course a year from now things will look different, change is subject to chronology and unavoidable, and that was what they said a year ago and the year before that and I hope things WILL look different as they often do, maybe that change you hope will happen WILL happen but can't because the system is rigged but will be accomplished by those willing to TRY. NUT UP OR SHUT UP!

[imperator03]

Mar 28, 2011 21:44:43 GMT -5 vault72 said:

You must have taken philosophy in college as you debate in a circle, alot of info but not really answering the question instead trying to create other arguement points irrelevent of the main discussion point, unless you consider that the table is rigged against change so just screw it and don't play the game as your basis for an answer? That's sheep / defeatist talk and as I stated, either try and change things or sit down and be quiet, you only can complain with authority if you are trying to make a difference or tried and failed but to have never tried at all lends no credibility to your arguements, your just rehashing what those who have or are trying have stated. Your own statement how IF an invader lands on U.S. soil is the bogeyman IE... a rare probability is a cop out plea then you are right, its a re-statement against your claim that you would fight if it came to protecting the U.S. which you yourself have stated so an invasion is really the only way unless you consider the attacks of 9/11 in which case you should have enlisted then but didn't, so you are ridiculing your own excuse, good job proving my point that no one is buying your excuse due to it's lack of credibility by proxy of probability as the standard coward's cop out plea to serving in the Armed Forces. Of course a year from now things will look different, change is subject to chronology and unavoidable, and that was what they said a year ago and the year before that and I hope things WILL look different as they often do, maybe that change you hope will happen WILL happen but can't because the system is rigged but will be accomplished by those willing to TRY. NUT UP OR SHUT UP!

Blah, blah, blah. That Ooh rah stuff is good for motivating people, but getting people to line up and march in the wrong direction is still a bad idea. Defeatist talk? What exactly do you mean by that? It's not about standing up or sitting down, but deciding what you're going to do when it all comes crashing down. It's a shame that our military has seen fit to indoctrinate rather than educate our troops.

9/11 was handled stupidly. We sent the wrong force structure to deal with al Qaeda. We knocked off two dictators, would up involved in a civil war and ten years later haven't managed to catch bin Laden. So no, I'm glad I didn't sign up because by acting the way they did, our leaders proved that they aren't trying to catch this guy. In the end our troopers only become fodder while the American people pay and pay and the only people who seem to win are the defense contractors. But then again that goes all the way back to WW I.

You make some bold claims about "circular arguments" and "philosophy" which makes me wonder if you know what those terms mean. Examples and not just statements would be nice. You also make the mistake of thinking you can stand up against the machine that our society has become. You cannot. It's gotten to the point now where all you can do it watch it coming like a train wreck and hope you don't get mashed by something when the trains do finally hit.