Your nick is captpicard. You say in your post "us in the miltary".
So, I have to answer with a question.
Are you in the real military or just a Starfleet group?

If it's real miltary, thank you for your service and which branch?
If it's Starfleet... Kaplagh! I am Archimago, of the house Vorgath.

Your question is not likely to result in an answer that will satisfy you. This blog is more interested it theory than practicallity.
In fact, I can probably start this off right by asking, why don't you complain about the lazy right wingers that send you into dangerous situations while they stay safely behind. At least the left wingers are using the freedom you are paying for. The silent right is wasting it by not using it.

First off, thanks for your service.

Sure, there are people that protest the military, but that's not a point of view shared by all "leftwingers", that's just the point of view of those protestors. Sticking the anti-military label on all of us "leftwingers" would be akin to me calling all "rightwingers" abortion clinic bombers. Anybody who protests the military in general isn't really thinking things through.

I think the misconception about how most Democrats feel about the military comes from the fact that most of us are against the war in Iraq. We're against that war because we are against giving the lives of our country's sons and daughters to an undefined cause which changes depending on political motives or the non-existence of the previous goal. Most of us tend to believe that the "war on terror" is a war on Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda.

My personal view is that all wars are wrong. I am a pacifist, and as such believe that man has no right to kill (other men and or women). All acts of killing are murder and anyone who murders (whatever the "cause") has done something wrong.

I happen to be a secular humanist (you can read atheist is you like). My view is also shared by a great number of deeply religious individuals (Friends, or "Quakers" as well as other members of the Anabaptist movement among them).

That being said, I don't protest soldiers. It's my view that soldiers are used as pawns by governments and and that those same soldiers are less to blame than are the governments that command their actions.

I am not representative of the Left in general.

My personal feeling on the matter is that, in an ideal world, there would be no need for militaries. I disagree with going to war for whatever cause (I suppose excepting self-defense against against a concrete, defined threat), but I realize that in the REAL world, we do need a fighting force. I feel oftentimes that it is overused, or used for the wrong reasons.

I'm an Agnostic. I believe we only get one life. We have to make the most of it. There may or may not be something afterwards, but it's not this, and this is valuable. No one has the right to take a life. Just because in the real world they sometimes have no better option given the circumstances, that does not make it morally right.

I was going to let something slide, but then realized that it would be intellectually dishonest of me to do so. You make a remark suggesting that it is the military that “protects freedom.” This is a point often trumpeted by certain types and I think it is time that we all recognized exactly what sort of jingo that marches to. That armies protect freedom is a myth repeated by politicians wishing to do the opposite and by soldiers who have been indoctrinated to believe it.

Historically, armies have been an oppressive force. It is very difficult to find an example in which a populace (a general populace, not some privileged class within it) has been made more free by virtue of an army marching into their country.

The true protectors of freedom seem to be philosophers, intellectuals, politicians and documents. Granted, these things can also serve a diametric purpose, but they are certainly better suited to providing freedom of expression than any group of men with guns.

It's not dificult. WW2 The Allies
or do you think that only rich Jews were rescued.

The Civil War hastened the freedom of slaves.

I agree that war is wrong, but right or wrong, it happens. The ideal world where peace rules will never exist. It's not human nature.

"It's not dificult. WW2 The Allies
or do you think that only rich Jews were rescued.

The Civil War hastened the freedom of slaves."


I'll start at the bottom:

The Emancipation Proclamation and good Ole Abe Lincoln hastened the freedom of the slaves. A lot of soldiers killed and died to work out if this nation was a nation or a confederacy of independent states. Freeing the slaves was a political move on the part of Lincoln (maybe the best thing any American politician has ever done, but done for political reasons none the less).

Now on to Dubya Dubya Deuce: Yes, the Jews (as well as unionists, gays, the disabled, communists and many others) were being subjugated and slaughtered by Nazi forces. Yes, the allied forces (belatedly) put a stop to that. But, the first thing that must be realized is this: The U.S., Soviets and Brits were not fighting to save the Jews. Frankly, that had nothing to do with it. Had Hitler set at home and slaughtered Jews the rest of the West would have let him have his fun. It was his attempt to overtake Europe in general that led to our involvement. Saving the Jews (and others) was largely a fringe benefit.

Was Europe made more free by the invading armies? Ask East Germany or any of the other places that Stalin Seized and ruled with the iron hand.

Even if you wiped out humans, there are still army ants. Damn militant nature. "Gods creatures" killing each other. It's just wrong!

"It's not human nature."

The great thing about our current evolutionary phase is that we can fight against and even over turn our nature.

Imagine that.

"The great thing about our current evolutionary phase is that we can fight against and even over turn our nature."

A person can. People can't. People, evolved as they are, will never change.

You're stance that all killing is murder and all murder is wrong interests me.

1. Am I doing wrong when I eat a hamburger?
2. Am I doing wrong when I set a mousetrap?
3. Am I doing wrong if I kill an unprovoked human attacker in self-defense?

Should I be punished if I'm found in the wrong? If so, how?

Edit: I noticed your parenthetical use of "other men and women" in the comment above, so retract questions 1 and 2, as I assume you don't think these are wrong. Then I have to wonder, why do you value human life more than that of other animals?

1. no
2. perhaps
3. yes

1.No. Animals eat each other. we have evolved as upper paleolithic hunter gatherers (note the hunter portion) to require a certain (relatively small) amount of meat in our diets. Killing a cow to avoid starvation is ethically permissable.

2. Perhaps. Why, pray tell, do you want to kill a rodent? What did the mouse ever do to you? Doesn't it seem that a better solution would be to get a cat?

3. Yes. Why kill? Isn't it better ethically to allow yourself to die, rather than to take a human life? Could you not have escaped? Could you not have disarmed or disabled the attacker? These are better choices, ethically speaking.

Punishment is an entirely different question. I don't much care for the entire idea. People who commit "crimes" (a rather nebulous word) require: treatment, or rehabilitation, or segregation from others. Treatment and rehabilitation are the humane, sensible options. Some people must be seperated from society for the protection of that society. There is no way around it.

Honestly, this issue deserves much more time than I can give it right now. I suppose I could lay out my ethical system for you, but right now let me just explain one thing that you may not have gotten earlier: my injunction against killing applies to persons (all of the great apes including the third chimpanzee (that's us)).

you mention east Germany.
ok

France, Poland, Denmark, Belgium... the list goes on further. Sure you can see the bad in everything, but there are good sides too. Come on, you can fight this hold that the Emporor has over you. There is still good in you. I know it!

I repeat: Yes, the Jews (as well as unionists, gays, the disabled, communists and many others) were being subjugated and slaughtered by Nazi forces. Yes, the allied forces (belatedly) put a stop to that. But, the first thing that must be realized is this: The U.S., Soviets and Brits were not fighting to save the Jews. Frankly, that had nothing to do with it. Had Hitler set at home and slaughtered Jews the rest of the West would have let him have his fun. It was his attempt to overtake Europe in general that led to our involvement.

We didn't send troops to fight the Nazis to ensure or protect freedom. It was largely bussiness interests and the desire to shore up our own hegemony.

and, you seem to beg the question: were France, Poland, Denmark, Belgium freer after the allies marched in than before the Nazis marched in?

So, Nate, if I attacked you with intent to kill, and you were holding a gun, and repeated non-lethal attempts to "disable" me failed, you would accept death before dealing mine? Honestly?

"and, you seem to beg the question: were France, Poland, Denmark, Belgium freer after the allies marched in than before the Nazis marched in?"

I think that your problem with the military is that they march. Maybe if we could get them to saunter you'd feel better about it.

"So, Nate, if I attacked you with intent to kill, and you were holding a gun, and repeated non-lethal attempts to "disable" me failed, you would accept death before dealing mine? Honestly?"

Honestly? I can't answer to how I would behave in the hypothetical. I like to believe that I would die before killing. I know that if I killed you I would be doing wrong. I'm also certain that I would be forever haunted by my actions.

I actually recently placed a story that deals with the very thing we are discussing. I'll try to let you know when it appears.

"I think that your problem with the military is that they march. Maybe if we could get them to saunter you'd feel better about it."

Mostly I think they should prance

Nathan wrote:
It is very difficult to find an example in which a populace (a general populace, not some privileged class within it) has been made more free by virtue of an army marching into their country.


I list several.

Nathan responds that wasn't their main intent.

so what. The general populous was made more free from Allied efforts.

I also understand the economic reasons for the Civil War.
I never said that slavery was what caused it. I said that it hastened the freedom of the slaves. I think that the social pressures drive political practice. Lincoln freed the slaves because of social pressures. It is interesting to note that the song "John Brown's Body" was sang often by Union troops as they marched. John Brown as you may remember was the abolutionist that was hung for the Harper's Ferry incident. Why would Union soldiers sing a song in remembrance of an abolutionist, If they didn't think they were at least in part fighting for his cause. This song was later transformed into the Battle Hymn of the Republic.

In response to the first quote I am actually US miltary not just a star trek group. The name was created before I watched Firefly when star trek was one of my more fav. shows. It has since been usurped by Firefly
Also I realize I would not like everyones answer thats partly why I wrote it here because alot of your blogs seemed to me to have a leftist slant to them. Finally I realize not all left-wingers disagree with the miltary I just wanted to know mostly how those that do can justify slandering the very people who will fight and die to protect this country from outsiders or insiders who would seek to take it over(Yes I believe we do protect the US and the rights of her people??? You don't believe that is our main job read the oath of enlistment where we swear to uphold and protect the consitiution(spelling I know is wrong). These people yes have a right to do what they want its part of our job to protect there right I just find it ironic that they attack us in the miltary and I want to know how they justify slandering us. 1 Last thing Yes I can name one main nation that was made free due to the use of miltary force think the American revolution while America was not as free a society after as it is today for its time it was very free and it was thanks to the Continental Army also in WW2 yes the western countries were free after the allies liberated them. Except for West Germany we did not occupy any nation.
Also in case you could not guess I am conservative a Bush supporter and a christian so I would appreciate it as such if you could continue to keep your comments civil and avoid bashing or personall attacks they are immature, unneeded, and do more damage to your argument than a civil discussion does good. Thanks for keeping them civil so far just continue to do so please

Just a tip, Cap'n. If you draw a "civility line' in the sand, someone around here will do the long jump to cross it.

Enlisted soldiers may take an oath to protect the US, but that is seldom what they are used for. That's usually the main problem people have with the military.

"think the American revolution while America was not as free a society after as it is today for its time it was very free "

I seem to remember that the American Revolution benefited mostly white land owning men. Any greater freedoms for blacks, women and the poor would be crafted later.

Nathan- When we give examples of good, it's in response to your statement

"It is very difficult to find an example in which a populace (a general populace, not some privileged class within it) has been made more free by virtue of an army marching into their country."

Your responses about armies not helping everybody does not negate that they helped the general populace.

Who's protecting them?

how exactly did the american revolution help the general populace? By general opulace I obviously do not mean ONLY white male landowners. I include the poor, blacks, indians, women: everyone.

The Indians didn't want to pay taxes either.

You funny.

Archie Writes:

“Nathan wrote:
It is very difficult to find an example in which a populace (a general populace, not some privileged class within it) has been made more free by virtue of an army marching into their country.


I list several.

Nathan responds that wasn't their main intent.

so what. The general populous was made more free from Allied efforts.

I also understand the economic reasons for the Civil War.
I never said that slavery was what caused it. I said that it hastened the freedom of the slaves. I think that the social pressures drive political practice. Lincoln freed the slaves because of social pressures. It is interesting to note that the song "John Brown's Body" was sang often by Union troops as they marched. John Brown as you may remember was the abolutionist that was hung for the Harper's Ferry incident. Why would Union soldiers sing a song in remembrance of an abolutionist, If they didn't think they were at least in part fighting for his cause. This song was later transformed into the Battle Hymn of the Republic. “


so, are you saying that armies accidentally make people free while trying to do other things? If so, that isn’t a very good argument for your point.

An arsonist sets a fire because he wants to burn down the house of an ex-girlfriend. The fire spreads, eventually burning several houses and a large area of forest. A side effect of the fire is the germination of sequoia seeds, leading several new trees to grow. It is hard to argue that the arsonists is a friend of the trees.

I wouldn't say that they're accidents, more like terciary objectives.

generally not even tertiary.

I like the way I spelled it better.

I have to admit, seeing it spelled that way caused me to get a little emotionally erect.

"I seem to remember that the American Revolution benefited mostly white land owning men. Any greater freedoms for blacks, women and the poor would be crafted later."

Read what I said while it was not as free or equal as America is today it was far freerer than any other nation of its time with perhaps the exception of revolutionary france when that first started

Freerer? I'm not even sure that's a word in any language. But since you mention it... What about the Sioux nation. It was certainly freerer.

Uhh, actually the American Revolution made no difference whatsoever in the lives of the majority of people living in the new nation. The slaves were still slaves. Women were still denied suffrage and a say in how their lives were run. The poor were still treated like serfs. Claiming otherwise is bullshit.

I guess your right after much thought after all think of all the danes and norwegians and swedes and finns and french and beligum and dutch and italians and austrians they were all oppressed and crushed under heel after we used miltary force to crush Hitler in ww2. And the afghanis were certainly much less oppressed before we used miltary force to take down the taliban.
You know I was wrong miltary force has never done any good and all those europeans in the west at least were just deluded and forced to act like they were better off after we used our miltary to drive the nazis from there countries. But your right a miltary force has never been used to help someone.

One other thing about the American revolution yea your right compared to today it was not very free. But compare it to almost every other country of its day and time and it was very free. Comparing America of the revolution time frame makes as much sense as saying the chinease of the mediveal era in europe were not advanced because yea they had gunpowder but they had no cars or anything else

That is an untenable position. In this country, after the revolution, Blacks were slaves. Not so in Europe. If you happened to be black, then you would be freer in europe than here. If you were a woman, things were better in France than here. Sure, the situation was better here than in some other places, but the revolution had nothing to do with it. The freedom quotient of the average persson was exactly the same after the revolution as before. Live with it.

They quaestion you miss is (re WWII): were the Danes, Swedes, etc more free after U.S. Forces arrived than before German forces arrived? They had a level of freedom. An army took that away from some of them. If another army (on its way to do other things) accidentally gave that freedom back, I don't see that as a good argument for armies.

two things Nathan
1) Yes the western europeans were just as free after the US troops came in as they were before the Nazis conquered. that was after all our aim to free them and give them their nations back.
2) I have a feeling you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this point about miltaries. No matter what I say or show you you will always believe us in the miltary are only there to crush people under our boot and you will never be willing to see the fact that we are not evil and just automated killing machines. Just remeber if for some reason you are ever in a hostage situation it will more than likely be some element of the US miltary that frees you even though you believe us to be cruel oppressors. Would you be willing to do the same for someone who insults and bashes you all the time???????

"2) I have a feeling you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this point about miltaries. No matter what I say or show you you will always believe us in the miltary are only there to crush people under our boot and you will never be willing to see the fact that we are not evil and just automated killing machines. Just remeber if for some reason you are ever in a hostage situation it will more than likely be some element of the US miltary that frees you even though you believe us to be cruel oppressors. Would you be willing to do the same for someone who insults and bashes you all the time???????"


This isn't at all what I have been saying.
Most soldiers (including my grandfather who fought in Korea, my Uncle who fought in Vietnam and my Brother in Law who is in Iraq right now) are decent people. It's just that they are being used. Badly.

Post comment record?

Every person in the miltary knows what they get into when they enlist. before they have us swear in they ask if everyone is there by their own choice and not being forced or coerced into joining.
2)How does having a soldier do what he is trained to do using him we are trained to fight we know when we enlist that we may be called upon to fight that is our job to go into places others will not and fight to keep our nation safe. sending us into war is not using us its just having us do our job

Every person in the miltary knows what they get into when they enlist. before they have us swear in they ask if everyone is there by their own choice and not being forced or coerced into joining.
Not trying to join in the debate, but what about the draft? And, speaking of which, if women want equal rights, why don't they have to register for selective service...?

We don't have a draft right now we may if that democratic senator Rep Rangel from NY gets his way but right now we don't have a draft hence why we are called an all volunteer force.
And women want equal rights and more if they can get them without any of the responsblities(sp) of them