America's greatest sin [W:264]

lpast said:

Just a few words... just one marine, one GI, one sailor, one airmen... is worth untold numbers of our enemies to me....once your in it WIN IT..

Click to expand...

Just a note on this. I was in the USAF for 4 years. I was punished several times for doing my job well, never rewarded. I kept computers up and running for places like SAC and targeting in Vietnam. My value was very low. And my superiors would generally express your POV. I should be happy to read about how you'd value me, but I have some uncertainty.

Andalublue said:

I suspect so. It's a mindset that's a consequence of American Exceptionalism; one of the US's least attractive facets.

Click to expand...

No, actually, what he's describing is warfare. Has nothing whatever to do with "American exceptionalism."

Harshaw said:

No, actually, what he's describing is warfare. Has nothing whatever to do with "American exceptionalism."

Click to expand...

If that's the case, then we can nuke every country we are at war with off the face of the earth. It's okay though, cause no American would die.

Nobody has yet mentioned polyester leisure suits.

An oversight, I'm sure.

We re-elected this guy...

hazlnut said:

We re-elected this guy...

Click to expand...

I have to disagree.



We didn't really elect him the first time around.

zstep18 said:

If that's the case, then we can nuke every country we are at war with off the face of the earth. It's okay though, cause no American would die.

Click to expand...

If the stakes were high enough -- say, national survival were on the line -- yes, indeed, we could.

The Allies did savage things in "the good war," WWII. We firebombed civilians, intensively and quite intentionally. We did it because it was necessary to destroy the enemy's will to continue fighting.

We didn't want to. We resisted it at first. But it was necessary, so we did it.

That's war.

You should only get into it if you have to. But if you do, you should fight it with every bit of ferocity you need to. So yes, you do value the lives of your people over those of the enemy.

Harshaw said:

If the stakes were high enough -- say, national survival were on the line -- yes, indeed, we could.

The Allies did savage things in "the good war," WWII. We firebombed civilians, intensively and quite intentionally. We did it because it was necessary to destroy the enemy's will to continue fighting.

We didn't want to. We resisted it at first. But it was necessary, so we did it.

That's war.

You should only get into it if you have to. But if you do, you should fight it with every bit of ferocity you need to. So yes, you do value the lives of your people over those of the enemy.

Click to expand...

When someone says that just one American soldier is worth untold number of "enemies" or enemy civilians, then the only stakes would be the life of one American soldier, not the survival of a nation. Therefore, if nuking a country off the face of the map would save the life of one American soldier, then so be it, according to that logic.

zstep18 said:

When someone says that just one American soldier is worth untold number of "enemies" or enemy civilians, then the only stakes would be the life of one American soldier, not the survival of a nation. Therefore, if nuking a country off the face of the map would save the life of one American soldier, then so be it, according to that logic.

Click to expand...

That's baggage you're adding yourself.

Harshaw said:

That's baggage you're adding yourself.

Click to expand...

Not really. If someone says one American life is worth an unlimited or untold number of enemies lives, that's where that logic will eventually lead. Why risk the lives of one American when we can just completely disintegrate a whole enemy nation?

zstep18 said:

When someone says that just one American soldier is worth untold number of "enemies" or enemy civilians, then the only stakes would be the life of one American soldier, not the survival of a nation. Therefore, if nuking a country off the face of the map would save the life of one American soldier, then so be it, according to that logic.

Click to expand...

Silly argument. If you are involved in a war where your prisoners of war are dying daily in the most appalling circumstances and where to end that war by other means would cost both you and your enemy far more lives, then you do what is necessary to end it.

zstep18 said:

When someone says that just one American soldier is worth untold number of "enemies" or enemy civilians, then the only stakes would be the life of one American soldier, not the survival of a nation. Therefore, if nuking a country off the face of the map would save the life of one American soldier, then so be it, according to that logic.

Click to expand...

First off, it wasn't just one American live, it was millions of American lives, and also we weren't exactly sure what it would do. In retrospect it was far worse thing than what Truman thought he was doing.

Your Star said:

First off, it wasn't just one American live, it was millions of American lives, and also we weren't exactly sure what it would do. In retrospect it was far worse thing than what Truman thought he was doing.

Click to expand...

Okay, I was referring to the statement "just one marine, one GI, one sailor, one airmen... is worth untold numbers of our enemies to me".

zstep18 said:

Not really. If someone says one American life is worth an unlimited or untold number of enemies lives, that's where that logic will eventually lead. Why risk the lives of one American when we can just completely disintegrate a whole enemy nation?

Click to expand...

Exactly. How many US Servicemen and women would be home right now if we'd simply carpet-nuked Afghanistan and Iraq?

Actually the paradox in nuking our enemies if national survival was thought to be at stake is it would insure the end of our nation.

The concept of our troops being worth so many of their troops is rather new, mostly due to a change in wars of national defense to wars of national interest. Prior to that, religion, bigotry and racism drove the eagerness to be savage and de-humanize the enemy.

Our own War of Northern Aggression had massive losses by the attacker with little regard for the common soldier braving shot and shell.

As late as WWII submarine warfare, while considered barbaric, held the merchantship had to be warned before being sunk.

Frustration
Desperation
Nationalism
Racism
Bigotry

That drives savagery

National Survival is a negligee the devil puts on before we lie down with him.

Tigger said:

Exactly. How many US Servicemen and women would be home right now if we'd simply carpet-nuked Afghanistan and Iraq?

Click to expand...

Wouldn't be much of a home after someone nuked us in retaliation, and the human race died off due to a nuclear winter.

Canell said:

Thoughts anyone?

Click to expand...

Well, I voted for American Indians. But I rather think it's a toss-up between slavery and the American Indians -- which, one could say, are very closely related. It's even hard for me to believe that American Indians live the way they live. I guess it's their choice....?

Slavery, on the other hand, forced 12 million blacks into servitude. A forced immigration, if you will. Immigrants are strong willed people. Those who came/come here willingly leave their families behind, abandon most, if not all, of their property, and come here seeking a better future. IMO, they are the saving grace of the United States of America. We ought to allow more of them. Slaves were brought here against their will, devastating their families, destroying their families, and breaking their spirits.

Then, once we freed them, we had not much for them to do. They were uneducated...suddenly thrown out to fend for themselves...and, to this day, are continuously being destroyed by poor educational opportunities, unsafe neighborhoods and the carrot of entitlement continually dangled in front of their eyes. We have effectively destroyed generations of black families...and continue to do so to this very day.

notquiteright said:

National Survival is a negligee the devil puts on before we lie down with him.

Click to expand...

Excellent post! If that last expression is of your own invention, I applaud your literary talent.

Your Star said:

Wouldn't be much of a home after someone nuked us in retaliation, and the human race died off due to a nuclear winter.

Click to expand...

Okay, I've thought about this point I made a bit, and it got me wondering. Would it be better to use a nuclear bomb to save your country, or not use it, and sacrifice your country, knowing that there is a high likely-hood of retaliation attacks that could destroy our planet?

That question probably deserves it's own thread, but I'm thinking the latter would be the obvious, yet difficult choice to make.

Your Star said:

Okay, I've thought about this point I made a bit, and it got me wondering. Would it be better to use a nuclear bomb to save your country, or not use it, and sacrifice your country, knowing that there is a high likely-hood of retaliation attacks that could destroy our planet?

That question probably deserves it's own thread, but I'm thinking the latter would be the obvious, yet difficult choice to make.

Click to expand...

If you're talking about a land invasion of the US then the answer is obvious - we use the nukes. If the other side wants to nuke it's own troops (in our country), or the territory it seems to want (our country), then so be it. For them that possibility makes the whole thing kind of pointless, though, doesn't it?

Anda-
I have NOOOO idea, I drank a lot back when I carried the Mattel Toy for Gawd and Country so I could have heard it while impaired.

But it does zing now don't it.... eace

notquiteright said:

Anda-
I have NOOOO idea, I drank a lot back when I carried the Mattel Toy for Gawd and Country so I could have heard it while impaired.

But it does zing now don't it.... eace

Click to expand...

Certainly does. May I quote you (and it) in my sig line?

Your Star said:

Okay, I've thought about this point I made a bit, and it got me wondering. Would it be better to use a nuclear bomb to save your country, or not use it, and sacrifice your country, knowing that there is a high likely-hood of retaliation attacks that could destroy our planet?

That question probably deserves it's own thread, but I'm thinking the latter would be the obvious, yet difficult choice to make.

Click to expand...

Countries come and go, rise and fall and the World keeps turning. The destruction of life on Earth in order to ensure that your country is the last one standing when the nuclear winter falls takes insanity to apocalyptic levels.

I'm sure that most current superpowers would opt for the former of your options however.

America's greatest sin is hypocrisy. We say we believe in freedom and tolerance but we are consistently one of the last nations of our Western tradition to conform our own actions to those ideals.

Tigger said:

Sorry, but that's not likely to happen. At least not outside of a very small segment of the population. Too much chance of getting burned when you get involved with people you haven't vetted ahead of time or who don't at least have others you know and trust to speak for them.

Click to expand...

I wasn't asking to spend the night at your house or borrow your car; I was just expressing a desire that our online interactions be of a cordially friendly nature. While I disagree with you on a number of things, I have always had a certain admiration for the person who holds unpopular views with open frankness, and determinedly sticks to his guns despite all criticism.

However, biting the hand extended in friendship is the action of a vicious dog that lacks the capacity to recognize the sincerity of the gesture, and unworthy of a man who wishes to portray himself as honorable and principled.

Indeed, your assertion that you'd rather die than live under the rule "of the likes of me" was a surprising bit of viciously uncalled for reaction, much like that dog whose been kicked too much to recognize a friendly gesture. It was irrational in that I doubt you could even name ten policy positions that "The Goshin Regime" would impose and get more than two or three correct. You bemoan that we don't impose universal morality on all by force, then threaten suicide if any morality other than your own were imposed on you, yet I don't see you killing yourself under the current governmental system... and still you speak as if you're certain that The Goshin Regime would be even worse, when you could hardly define what it WOULD be.

This was very uncivilized behavior from someone who likes to portray himself as a gentleman of the old school, and rather surprising in that I certainly did not think that we were enemies. Was I mistaken? Do you actually despise me that much?