• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

West Point

marke said:
To answer your question, I retained my regular Army pay grade and was paid my regular monthly salary while at the Prep School.



I don't want to share those details with you. I sense a certain level of hostility from you which makes me not want to be more detailed or specific with you about my personal life.



My roommate at the school came home late one night after having been out drinking. The MPs came early the next morning and arrested him. Apparently he had gotten drunk at the base club, did something illegal, immoral and unethical to a phone booth, fled in his car after the MPs were called, and came back to the barracks after abandoning his car on the 9th hole of the base golf course.



I don't mean to suggest West Point or the Prep School harbor a more depraved general atmosphere than other colleges and universities. I just mean that West Point and the Prep School in my opinion did not demonstrate to me any moral superiority in spirit than other secular colleges and universities. I have found that the 'enforced' atmospheres of several Christian universities I became familiar with were superior to the generally carnal atmospheres of secular schools I was familiar with.
Click to expand...

Christian universities and tertiary military academies such as USMA are purpose specific and mission focused institutions of a kind of higher education respectively. Christian ones are sacred in their nature while the government ones are necessarily secular while including a religious component.

And it is unfortunate for everyone in the society when one views the other in condescending terms. It is especially egregious when the Christian parochial community that fences itself in views the secular and cosmopolitan government academies as inferior both morally and in the character of the cadets, faculty, admin, governors.

Accordingly, any routine and regular holier than thou and self appointed pseudo saintly assaults against the morality and character of the military or naval cadets of the United States are unnecessary, unwanted, unwholesome. Indeed, consider if the abuse became a two way flow, ie, students and alumni of secular universities began calling out the self appointed apostolic missionaries of the Christian universities on their presumptuous lecturing and scolding in matters that are profoundly or extremely held to be sacred.

In other words, you need to leave the spiritual life of cadets at USMA and at other government armed services academies to the persons charged by the government to provide for them, ie the Chaplains Corps. And if the Chaplains Corps and its officers who are educated and trained in both their religious and military fields aren't good enough for you in your intimate closeness to your God, then your God's Will be damned because I've already noted to you at the threads that your God is without question a Right Wing Lunatic God, so He has no place in religion to begin with.
 
Tangmo said:
Christian universities and tertiary military academies such as USMA are purpose specific and mission focused institutions of a kind of higher education respectively. Christian ones are sacred in their nature while the government ones are necessarily secular while including a religious component.

And it is unfortunate for everyone in the society when one views the other in condescending terms. It is especially egregious when the Christian parochial community that fences itself in views the secular and cosmopolitan government academies as inferior both morally and in the character of the cadets, faculty, admin, governors.

Accordingly, any routine and regular holier than thou and self appointed pseudo saintly assaults against the morality and character of the military or naval cadets of the United States are unnecessary, unwanted, unwholesome. Indeed, consider if the abuse became a two way flow, ie, students and alumni of secular universities began calling out the self appointed apostolic missionaries of the Christian universities on their presumptuous lecturing and scolding in matters that are profoundly or extremely held to be sacred.

In other words, you need to leave the spiritual life of cadets at USMA and at other government armed services academies to the persons charged by the government to provide for them, ie the Chaplains Corps. And if the Chaplains Corps and its officers who are educated and trained in both their religious and military fields aren't good enough for you in your intimate closeness to your God, then your God's Will be damned because I've already noted to you at the threads that your God is without question a Right Wing Lunatic God, so He has no place in religion to begin with.
Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing your religious views.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Wishful thinking.

If the officer corps were so damn principled, why have they been silent on the sophistry that is the AUMF?

Because they benefit from perpetual illegitimate wars, that's why.
Click to expand...

The post 9/11 national defense policy of the United States recognizes a period of extended "small wars" of low intensity against non state combatants who dwell and operate in remote areas proximate to the equator and who are determined to severely harm the United States and ideally to destroy it.

In respect of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force enacted into law due to 9/11:


A New AUMF Is Not a Solution to “Endless War”

The only way to actually end a war is to build a political consensus to end it. It was the growing support in Congress to cut off funds for the Vietnam War that helped push the Nixon administration to reach a peace deal. It was broad political consensus that forced President Bush to agree to a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq. It’s what drove President Barack Obama to campaign on ending that war and then actually ending it once in office.

We are in a quagmire in Afghanistan because there is neither political support for raising U.S. troops to a level necessary to defeat the Taliban—if that is even possible—or force them to the negotiating table, nor for withdrawing the 15,000 U.S. troops still fighting there. We will remain stuck in the same place until a political consensus emerges for one of those paths regardless of whether Congress passes a new AUMF that requires it to reauthorize the war at regular intervals.

It is now clear that Congress cannot bring about the end of the wars it authorizes merely by passing a new authorization for the use of military force. It’s time for those who believe in ending the wars to stop tinkering around the edges of the AUMF and start building the political consensus that could bring about that result.

A New AUMF Is Not a Solution to “Endless War” - Just Security
Click to expand...



You can't succeed to terminate or significantly neutralize the AUMF for two excellent and nation saving reasons. One is that your terminology is wrong, ie, we are engaged in conflicts and not a war as my statement herein says. The second reason is that I and too many others won't let you succeed. That is, we can fight 'em over there or we can fight 'em right here, and too many of us in the USA insist sensibly that we fight 'em over there. Indeed fighting 'em over there is a no brainer.

USA has moreover the exact armed force design and construct -- battered as it is -- to conduct the post 9/11 era low intensity "small wars" conflicts against ragtag forces in foreign lands, and it is the All Volunteer Force. The AVF is the effective answer to the here today gone tomorrow non state combatants -- to include state combatants incognito -- that have made the fatal mistake to believe they can endure the long term and prevail in the end because of it. They cannot. Our long term post 9/11 is far longer than the foreign combatants had ever conceived was possible. Woe is them due to their lands and populations suffering the severe consequences of their mad folly.
 
Tangmo said:
The post 9/11 national defense policy of the United States recognizes a period of extended "small wars" of low intensity against non state combatants who dwell and operate in remote areas proximate to the equator and who are determined to severely harm the United States and ideally to destroy it.

In respect of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force enacted into law due to 9/11:






You can't succeed to terminate or significantly neutralize the AUMF for two excellent and nation saving reasons. One is that your terminology is wrong, ie, we are engaged in conflicts and not a war as my statement herein says. The second reason is that I and too many others won't let you succeed. That is, we can fight 'em over there or we can fight 'em right here, and too many of us in the USA insist sensibly that we fight 'em over there. Indeed fighting 'em over there is a no brainer.

USA has moreover the exact armed force design and construct -- battered as it is -- to conduct the post 9/11 era low intensity "small wars" conflicts against ragtag forces in foreign lands, and it is the All Volunteer Force. The AVF is the effective answer to the here today gone tomorrow non state combatants -- to include state combatants incognito -- that have made the fatal mistake to believe they can endure the long term and prevail in the end because of it. They cannot. Our long term post 9/11 is far longer than the foreign combatants had ever conceived was possible. Woe is them due to their lands and populations suffering the severe consequences of their mad folly.
Click to expand...

The same AVF you has constantly libeled, demeaned and vilified in the past?
 
Tangmo said:
The post 9/11 national defense policy of the United States recognizes a period of extended "small wars" of low intensity against non state combatants who dwell and operate in remote areas proximate to the equator and who are determined to severely harm the United States and ideally to destroy it.

In respect of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force enacted into law due to 9/11:






You can't succeed to terminate or significantly neutralize the AUMF for two excellent and nation saving reasons. One is that your terminology is wrong, ie, we are engaged in conflicts and not a war as my statement herein says. The second reason is that I and too many others won't let you succeed. That is, we can fight 'em over there or we can fight 'em right here, and too many of us in the USA insist sensibly that we fight 'em over there. Indeed fighting 'em over there is a no brainer.

USA has moreover the exact armed force design and construct -- battered as it is -- to conduct the post 9/11 era low intensity "small wars" conflicts against ragtag forces in foreign lands, and it is the All Volunteer Force. The AVF is the effective answer to the here today gone tomorrow non state combatants -- to include state combatants incognito -- that have made the fatal mistake to believe they can endure the long term and prevail in the end because of it. They cannot. Our long term post 9/11 is far longer than the foreign combatants had ever conceived was possible. Woe is them due to their lands and populations suffering the severe consequences of their mad folly.
Click to expand...

Sounds like psychobabble to me, straight from the pentagon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom