|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 6:04 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Fox wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Mosley wrote: |
I honestly can't fathom in the least how a guy like Fox can declare "I don't think about such events frequently" and then suggest that those of "good will" or some such silly thing can hold hands around the bonfire with the likes of the Taliban and sing "Kumbaya" and all will be well. Isn't this what the NDP's Jack Layton proposes? History is crammed to the lid with examples of this being total folly in the face of aggression.
Neville Chamberlain, Sept. 1938: "This[the Munich Agreement]brings us 'peace in our time' ".
Adolf Hitler, one week before the invasion of Poland, 1939: "Our enemies[Britain & France] are little worms. I saw them at Munich." |
Mosley comes back every once and awhile, its more often than not nice to hear from an old hand. Much more enjoyable from hearing the same animal crap from the same relatively new poster again and again and again and again . . . |
If you want to support professional killers in opposition to my arguments, just come out and say it. No need for this effeminate passive-aggressive approach, especially when it involves praising strawman argumentation so you can get your little jibe in. |
Praising what argumentation now? I agree with everything BB has said in this thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Praising what argumentation now? |
Mosley's.
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| I agree with everything BB has said in this thread. |
So your position is that beneficial entitlements which specifically target military members or their families are not pro-military, that reducing military benefits won't actually reduce military numbers, and that the criminal officer from A Few Good Men had a point. Okay. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mosley
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mosley
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
First, thanks (I think!) to Happy Warrior & OTOH. With OTOH, leftist that he is, I always have the impression that we could duke it out, w/bloodied noses, & then have soju & galbitang together.
"The Taliban does not =Hitler"[grammatical correction mine].
Actually, in many ways, the Taliban DOES=the NSDAP. Both entities favour[ed] totalitarianism in the support of a fanatical "religion'', a belief in the "chosen people" versus ''the other"(believer/infidel; Aryan/subhuman), and the use of violence against combatant & civilian alike...w/violence being DESIRABLE as much as necessary.
The Taliban/AL-Quaeda crowd does not belong to any "professional", governmental entity. The Taliban, as an entity, wasn't created by any nation-state, it doesn't pledge allegiance to any nation-state, it isn't supported by any nation-state via taxation...so, Fox, is it "off the hook" when compared to a statist military which is an "evil, sociopathic organization"?
A digression: Was D Day(against the GERMANS) an exercise in "optional military adventurism"?
By your ''logic'' & "morality", then, anyone who joins the Canadian military must be "evil & sociopathic". The kid out of high school from Thunder Bay, ONT, who enlists as a grunt to face(for quite low pay) severe training, then a posting to a part of the world where thirst, dust, fatigue, IEDs, snipers, etc., are the order of the day must be an "evil sociopath" himself.
I AM NOT WORTHY TO CARRY THE DUFFEL BAG OF THIS KID...AND NEITHER ARE YOU. The difference is...I admit it.
"Economic conservative"? You bet I am. But not an anarchist. Expenditures on national defense constitute a legitimate function of the democratic state. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mosley wrote: |
| Actually, in many ways, the Taliban DOES=the NSDAP. |
If you completely ignore the fact that the latter was a direct, credible military threat to every nation in the world, while the former is a small group of extremists who ultimately pose no credible military threat to any developed nation, I could see why one might come to that entirely incorrect conclusion.
| Mosley wrote: |
| Both entities favour[ed] totalitarianism in the support of a fanatical "religion'', a belief in the "chosen people" versus ''the other"(believer/infidel; Aryan/subhuman), and the use of violence against combatant & civilian alike...w/violence being DESIRABLE as much as necessary. |
So what? The Nazis weren't a military threat because of their beliefs, they were a military threat because they built a huge army and began to effectively over-run Europe with it. The Taliban not only has done no such thing, but realistically never could. Certainly, it has claimed to take small, terrorist pot shots at developed countries, but we've hurt ourselves economically with our military response far more than they could ever have hoped to. This just demonstrated the total irrationality of your kind of military-response ideology. The Taliban does a little damage, so we economically screw ourselves and kill a bunch of civilians to get back at them? Maybe you're cool with that, but some of us aren't.
| Mosley wrote: |
| so, Fox, is it "off the hook" when compared to a statist military which is an "evil, sociopathic organization"? |
I never said they weren't evil. There's lots of evil people in the world, and lots of evil organizations in the world. That doesn't mean we should go around invading nations and killing civilians.
| Mosley wrote: |
| A digression: Was D Day(against the GERMANS) an exercise in "optional military adventurism"? |
It was optional military adventurism by the Germans, and it cost them in the long run. That said, how many times I do I need to reitterate that my position is not that militaries can currently be entirely abandoned before you'll notice it? Yes, unfortunately, we need to maintain some military defenses in the status quo. No, that doesn't mean we should maintain excessive military defenses, and it especially doesn't mean we should needlessly invade other nations at great expense to our tax-payers and at the cost of many civilians lives. Military defense should be about the minimum required to maintain security; as soon as you start sending soldiers needlessly overseas, you've very clearly exceeded that, and are now pissing away taxpayer money on things which don't benefit taxpayers. How is that better than the socialist "boondongles" you complained about earlier?
| Mosley wrote: |
| By your ''logic'' & "morality", then, anyone who joins the Canadian military must be "evil & sociopathic". |
Being willing to kill people on government command outside your countries boarders in a situation where your country is facing no credible military threat in return for money seems quite evil to me. But then, I think those funds are better off in citizens' hands going to things that benefit citizens. I think those workers could be building things of real value to Canadian citizens. I think civilians don't need to die just because the Taliban is evil.
| Mosley wrote: |
The kid out of high school from Thunder Bay, ONT, who enlists as a grunt to face(for quite low pay) severe training, then a posting to a part of the world where thirst, dust, fatigue, IEDs, snipers, etc., are the order of the day must be an "evil sociopath" himself.
I AM NOT WORTHY TO CARRY THE DUFFEL BAG OF THIS KID...AND NEITHER ARE YOU. The difference is...I admit it. |
Whatever, this is just evidence of more pro-military brainwashing. Believe it if you want to, and shrug off the civilian casualities and economic waste your beliefs result in. After all, who cares, right?
I'd much rather that young man were doing useful work domestically. It's less dangerous, it's less pointlessly costly to the nation, citizens actually get something out of it, and it doesn't result in civilians pointlessly dying.
| Mosley wrote: |
| "Economic conservative"? You bet I am. But not an anarchist. |
Opposing needless military expenditures is not equivalent to supporting anarchy. And anyone who supports needless military expenditures is not an economic conservative. Military expenditure beyond basic, minimal national defense is the most wasteful kind of public expenditure possible. I'm sorry, but assuming you actually believe what you've posted here, you aren't an economic conservative. You believe in tax and spend, you just want that money spent on killing people abroad instead of helping citizens domestically. And you wonder why I use terms like evil.
| Mosley wrote: |
| Expenditures on national defense constitute a legitimate function of the democratic state. |
Nothing about killing civilians in Afghanistan while supporting a guy like Hamid Karzai is relevant to national defense. But you don't care about that as long as you can trumpet your pro-military horn and drool over the feet of enlist men, eh?
You're certainly a Republican in spirit, son. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
How many Americans on this thread have come out in support of our presence in Afghanistan? I think it is zero.
You really think getting rid of Canada's program and other similar educational incentives would eventually lead to a downsizing of American forces and fewer military adventures?
No, you know what MIGHT bring about that change? A catastrophic event such as WW II, but with the US experiencing the types of losses Europe and Japan had. Either that or peace for a few decades (no repeat 9/11s or any military adventures). The former would make people see the horrors of war, while the latter would make people wonder why we need such a massive military. That's what it took for Europe and Japan to downsize. If you know of any other examples of military downsizing, I'm all ears. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mosley
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fox: I AM pro-military(unabashedly so) NOT pro-militarist. B-i-i-i-g difference mate.
During WW 2, in the Italian campaign, the Wehrmacht sometimes directed propaganda leaflets at Canadian troops with messages like "Canadians, what do you want in Europe, what is your interest in Italy? Or did you earnestly believe that the freedom of Canada was threatened by Germany?" Now, I'm willing to bet that precious few of those troops ever thought Italian Fascists or German Nazis would be rolling into Thunder Bay anytime soon. That didn't make the Allied cause any less worthy. Ditto Afghanistan.
Bucheon: I think I see the point you're making in your last para, but think it's not quite cut and dried as all that. After '45, for example, the US military conducted a massive de-mobilization. That certainly wasn't the case on the Soviet side! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
How many Americans on this thread have come out in support of our presence in Afghanistan? I think it is zero.
You really think getting rid of Canada's program and other similar educational incentives would eventually lead to a downsizing of American forces and fewer military adventures? |
My assertion that Canada would do best to get rid of those (and other similar) programs is part of an overall assertion that we should stop ennobling soldiers and stop wasting needless resources on our unproductive militaries. I have a similar (though obviously more far-reaching) argument with regards to America.
People keep saying things like:
1) It's just a small amount of money: this is an idea that needs to end if we're ever going to see fiscal responsibility return to our governments. A lot of "small amounts of money" add up to a big amount very quickly.
2) Removing these programs won't reduce the size of the military, just the quality of the troops: first of all, I don't think this is a given. Even if it is, though, if we're going to have a needlessly large military, I'd much rather see otherwise intelligent, productive citizens stay on domestic soil and actually partake in valuable economic activity while the less economically valuable kind of citizen bucheon bum described end up in the military instead. So even if the net change in the number of soldiers ended up being zero, those soldiers will be cheaper, both in terms of compensation received and in terms of the loss of an otherwise valuable worker to the economy. It's a win no matter what, but I suspect this really will actually reduce troop numbers.
3) Defund these programs and the military will just use the funds on other things: the government can defund military programs and further choose to not allow the military to keep the funds in question. If people were to stop ennobling soldiers and start voting out politicians who needlessly pissed away funds on the military beyond basic national defense, we'd see it stop quite quickly. The attitude that will lead to that kind of outcome is what I'm advocating for first and foremost; so long as people are "pro-military" we'll keep seeing pointless waste with regards to military expenditures. People should view the military as a necessary evil at best.
4) Mosely specifically said something along the lines of, "I AM NOT WORTHY TO CARRY THE DUFFEL BAG OF THIS KID...AND NEITHER ARE YOU." with regards to soldiers. This is just another example of the inane, brainwashed response to soldiers that I'm against here, though. So long as people think like this, they'll keep acting as "useful idiots" to the kind of economically liberal politician that supports taxing the population in order to spend that money on the military. They'll be content to sit by screaming bloody murder about programs designed to help people domestically, but cheer happily when the same funds are pissed away harassing other nations overseas to no citizen benefit at all. It's ridiculous.
Every excuse is being pulled out to defend this kind of nonsense. If you think it's just plain unlikely that we'll downsize the military in our lifetimes, okay; for every guy like me who supports it, there's a drone like Mosley who would scream like a baby if it happened, so yes, change is unlikely. But if you're arguing it can't or shouldn't happen on some fundamental level, I think you're wrong. If enough people were to come around to my type of thinking on this issue, it could occur, and it should occur. The idea that people like me should just shrug and give up because so many voters are like Mosley is not something I'm willing to accept. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| [qu. Military expenditure beyond basic, minimal national defense is the most wasteful kind of public expenditure possible. . |
This only holds true if other countries adhere to this as well. Sticking to a strict program of basic minimal national defense, while other nations improve theirs as a top priority, eventually leaves one not only unable to defend their allies but also themselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mosley wrote: |
Bucheon: I think I see the point you're making in your last para, but think it's not quite cut and dried as all that. After '45, for example, the US military conducted a massive de-mobilization. That certainly wasn't the case on the Soviet side! |
No, I realize that. But also remember that the USSR was one of two sides that reaped the spoils of victory (the USA being the other). It gained territory, influence, technology, and industry. Of course it came at a MASSIVE expense, but since it was a dictatorship, that wasn't so important. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| [qu. Military expenditure beyond basic, minimal national defense is the most wasteful kind of public expenditure possible. . |
This only holds true if other countries adhere to this as well. Sticking to a strict program of basic minimal national defense, while other nations improve theirs as a top priority, eventually leaves one not only unable to defend their allies but also themselves. |
What constitutes basic, minimal national defense is dependant upon the military expenditures and measures potential enemy nations take. Given North Korea's military build-up, for example, basic national defense for South Korea is (unfortunately) going to involve quite a bit. By contrast, a nation like New Zealand, Canada, Australia, or so forth can get by with much less by comparison. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mosley
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fox: Given that you hold, in your la-di-da way(rather like the Regina 15), guys like that metaphorical kid from Thunder Bay in such contempt, I'd like to change tack & throw down this gauntlet: assuming you have some concept of "heroes", tell us who you consider to be "heroes" in contemporary Western society.
Do tell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Not members of the military, and that's all you need to know with regards to the discussion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mosley
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well done, mate.
We can finally agree: that IS all I need to know with regards to the discussion.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 05, 2010 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| [qu. Military expenditure beyond basic, minimal national defense is the most wasteful kind of public expenditure possible. . |
This only holds true if other countries adhere to this as well. Sticking to a strict program of basic minimal national defense, while other nations improve theirs as a top priority, eventually leaves one not only unable to defend their allies but also themselves. |
What constitutes basic, minimal national defense is dependant upon the military expenditures and measures potential enemy nations take. Given North Korea's military build-up, for example, basic national defense for South Korea is (unfortunately) going to involve quite a bit. By contrast, a nation like New Zealand, Canada, Australia, or so forth can get by with much less by comparison. |
But I would doubt that New Zealand, Canada or Australia have to worry about North Korea that much.
Russia on the other hand (given its backsliding into autocratic dictatorship) is much more of a danger...especially once its oil runs out and its chickens come home to roost.
China is another one. The point is that as another nation gets stronger and stronger (military and technologically) more and more money is going to have to be diverted to the defense budget until it is no longer basic or minimal.
I agree [partially with your opinion "What constitutes basic, minimal defense is dependant upon the military expenditures and measures potential enemy nations take."
I guess where we disagree is the meaning of "basic" or "minimal". I would posit that a defense budget for America capable of dealing with either Russia/China would be neither. Particularly in years to come as China develops and the situation in Russia worsens (assuming things continue in their present form for some time.) And this doesn't even take into account that every so often the standards of "basic" continue to rise, which leads to a rise in military spending. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
