[Al_U_Card]

You do realize that I could have chosen Ming.....

[kenberg]

jdonn, on Apr 9 2008, 02:21 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Apr 9 2008, 02:09 PM, said:

Since the Han dynasty.....

Insert funny han comment here __________

you beat me to this but surely it must in some way involve balls. Maybe best we don't go there as we have already had some 250 posts on the subject.

[matmat]

kenberg, on Apr 9 2008, 06:25 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 9 2008, 02:21 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Apr 9 2008, 02:09 PM, said:

Since the Han dynasty.....

Insert funny han comment here __________

you beat me to this but surely it must in some way involve balls. Maybe best we don't go there as we have already had some 250 posts on the subject.

http://www.purelyric...lyrics=cfaaofya

[Gerben42]

Where did this thread derail? All I wanted to know is what this colourful thingy on the general's uniform was...

[matmat]

Gerben42, on Apr 10 2008, 03:42 AM, said:

Where did this thread derail? All I wanted to know is what this colourful thingy on the general's uniform was...

oh... that's a gay pride rainbow.

[jtfanclub]

Gerben42, on Apr 10 2008, 03:42 AM, said:

Where did this thread derail? All I wanted to know is what this colourful thingy on the general's uniform was...

That got answered on the first page, in detail. Wasn't anything to say on that subject after that....

[Trinidad]

Gerben42, on Apr 10 2008, 03:42 AM, said:

Where did this thread derail? All I wanted to know is what this colourful thingy on the general's uniform was...

I guess Mike had a hard time believing that you truely didn't know what the 'colourful thingy' was...

For the record, I do believe you. Mike happened to grow up in a country where the military is on a pedestal and you didn't.


Another question: What is the 'colourful thingy' actually called?

Rik

[Trinidad]

kenberg, on Apr 9 2008, 07:59 AM, said:

Whatever the case, we are in debt to those who have chosen to serve.

I disagree.

The point is that most businesses create their own market. The military is certainly no exception. But we would be better off without the products that the military provides us with.

Rik

[luke warm]

Trinidad, on Apr 10 2008, 04:31 PM, said:

kenberg, on Apr 9 2008, 07:59 AM, said:

Whatever the case, we are in debt to those who have chosen to serve.

I disagree.

The point is that most businesses create their own market. The military is certainly no exception. But we would be better off without the products that the military provides us with.

Rik

i don't think you've thought this out very well... are you saying our freedom wan't won, and later preserved, by our military?

[kenberg]

Trinidad, on Apr 10 2008, 04:31 PM, said:

kenberg, on Apr 9 2008, 07:59 AM, said:

Whatever the case, we are in debt to those who have chosen to serve.

I disagree.

The point is that most businesses create their own market. The military is certainly no exception. But we would be better off without the products that the military provides us with.

Rik

We would be better off if there was no need for the military. But you think that there is no need? It seems to me that the history of the world provides more than enough reasons to be cautious.

Perhaps I misunderstand you. If you advocate restraint in the use of military force we agree. If you are suggesting that security is based on a strong economy and a way of life that will draw support from others, we agree. If you are suggesting we could wisely disband the military and close down the Pentagon, we do not agree.

[Trinidad]

luke warm, on Apr 10 2008, 04:59 PM, said:

Trinidad, on Apr 10 2008, 04:31 PM, said:

kenberg, on Apr 9 2008, 07:59 AM, said:

Whatever the case, we are in debt to those who have chosen to serve.

I disagree.

The point is that most businesses create their own market. The military is certainly no exception. But we would be better off without the products that the military provides us with.

Rik

i don't think you've thought this out very well... are you saying our freedom wan't won, and later preserved, by our military?

Whose freedom and free from whom? Are you talking about this from a US perspective: (the Boston tea party)? Or from a global perspective (the time that Earth was liberated from the Martians by the Earth military)?

I fully agree with you that the freedom in the US was won and preserved by the US military.


But what good does that do to the other 95% of the Earth's population?


If you look at it from a local perspective you could perceive that the local military protected the local freedom. However, if you look from a global perspective, the invention of the military (and military conflicts) was probably the biggest disaster that ever happened to Earth. Imagine where we would be if the money globally spent on the military was spent on drinking water, health care or, heck, Coca Cola (or playing bridge )? Wouldn't our freedom (everybody's freedom) be much larger?

Rik

[Trinidad]

kenberg, on Apr 10 2008, 07:23 PM, said:

Trinidad, on Apr 10 2008, 04:31 PM, said:

kenberg, on Apr 9 2008, 07:59 AM, said:

Whatever the case, we are in debt to those who have chosen to serve.

I disagree.

The point is that most businesses create their own market. The military is certainly no exception. But we would be better off without the products that the military provides us with.

Rik

We would be better off if there was no need for the military. But you think that there is no need? It seems to me that the history of the world provides more than enough reasons to be cautious.

Perhaps I misunderstand you. If you advocate restraint in the use of military force we agree. If you are suggesting that security is based on a strong economy and a way of life that will draw support from others, we agree. If you are suggesting we could wisely disband the military and close down the Pentagon, we do not agree.

Obviously, I am sketching the situation very black-white. I think we basically agree. (Closing down the Pentagon right now would not be a wise move.)

But my point is that armed forces should strive to make themselves redundant. (I am sure that you and I agree there.)

But just like a plumber, a weather man or someone selling encyclopedias, a soldier and a general want to keep their job. As a result, just like any other trade, the military itself is striving for sustainability rather than redundancy for plain simple economic reasons.

A door-to-door encyclopedia salesmen striving for sustainability isn't that bad. It results in more encyclopedias than we need. It's not optimal because we could spend the money on something more useful than excess encyclopedias, but it's far from a problem. But the strive of the military for sustainability results in more war than we need. That ìs a problem.

Larger organizations have stronger interests and stronger interests will make it easier for the organization to remain sustainable. If we strive to redundancy of the armed forces we will need to keep them small. When someone chooses to serve, he is reinforcing the military sustaining mechanism, rather than working towards redundancy. Therefore, (to get back to your first statement) I am definitely not in debt to him.

Rik

[luke warm]

Trinidad, on Apr 11 2008, 03:26 AM, said:

luke warm, on Apr 10 2008, 04:59 PM, said:

Trinidad, on Apr 10 2008, 04:31 PM, said:

kenberg, on Apr 9 2008, 07:59 AM, said:

Whatever the case, we are in debt to those who have chosen to serve.

I disagree.

The point is that most businesses create their own market. The military is certainly no exception. But we would be better off without the products that the military provides us with.

Rik

i don't think you've thought this out very well... are you saying our freedom wan't won, and later preserved, by our military?

Whose freedom and free from whom? Are you talking about this from a US perspective: (the Boston tea party)? Or from a global perspective (the time that Earth was liberated from the Martians by the Earth military)?

ours (americans) and from anyone who wants to take it

Quote

But what good does that do to the other 95% of the Earth's population?

some want freedom, some don't.. to say the military can't or won't avail a country whose population wants freedom (and whose military backs that position) seems fallacious to me

Quote

If you look at it from a local perspective you could perceive that the local military protected the local freedom. However, if you look from a global perspective, the invention of the military (and military conflicts) was probably the biggest disaster that ever happened to Earth. Imagine where we would be if the money globally spent on the military was spent on drinking water, health care or, heck, Coca Cola (or playing bridge  )? Wouldn't our freedom (everybody's freedom) be much larger?

not necessarily... even if it's true that various militaries have performed in a less than stellar way, and i think it's obviously true, i don't think your conclusion follows - necessarily

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Apr 11 2008, 05:26 PM, said:

some want freedom, some don't.. to say the military can't or won't avail a country whose population wants freedom (and whose military backs that position) seems fallacious to me

But isn't this country on the whole strongly opposed to the current, what shall I call it, military mission?

[kenberg]

I'll have to disagree with this freedom agenda. Yes we favor freedom, more or less, and here and there. However, if in 2003 Mr. Bush had gone before congress and the nation and said that we need to invade Iraq to bring them freedom he would have been thoroughly rebuffed. The argument was that Iraq posed a danger that had to be dealt with. Yes he also mentioned freedom, politicians do that, but that was not the logic behind our action and it would have received little support if it had been.

It has always been so. Much is often made of our allied liberation of France in 1944. It was of course a great accomplishment. But the Germans rolled into Paris in, I believe, May of 1940. The US entered the war in December of 1941. The reason for our entry was Pearl Harbor, and the alliance between Japan and Germany, not our overwhelming desire to go rescue our friends the French, or the English either for that matter. (By the way, most conservatives at the time were very opposed to helping anyone.) In 1944, France was liberated because it lay between England, where our troops were, and Germany, where we wanted to go. If Norway had lain in the path, we would have liberated Norway.

I consider myself a loyal American who honors his country. But we should not pretend history is different from what it is. We went into Iraq for strategic reasons, not very well thought out strategic reasons at that. It had very little to do with wanting to bring freedom to our friends the Iraqis. We now have some responsibility, and considerable self-interest, in leaving a somewhat stable society behind when we pull out. I hope we can do it. I also hope we think things through a little better in the future.

[han]

jdonn, on Apr 9 2008, 02:21 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Apr 9 2008, 02:09 PM, said:

Since the Han dynasty.....

Insert funny han comment here __________

When heroes fight on both sides,
Then tell me what is brav'ry worth?
The coward bright, quickly hides,
And digs the graves deep in the earth.

(Old Chinese Poem)

[Trinidad]

Just for the record: I am fully agreeing with Ken's post [Apr 11 2008, 09:59 PM].

Rik

[jdonn]

BTW I just saw a large portion of the press conference Bush had in Russia, it's the first time I have heard him speak in probably a year or two. He can barely construct a logical sentence about whatever the topic is. A high school valedictorian could have done a better job. Putin would speak about the missile issue and relations between the countries and their goals and such, and Bush would say something like "I like Vladimir, he's a stand up guy. I just met his successor too, seems like a straightforward fellow. I like straightforward fellows. I think I can talk about this nucular thing with him." except with more stumbling. It gave me a tummy ache.

(Sorry was only semi on topic)

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Apr 11 2008, 05:43 PM, said:

luke warm, on Apr 11 2008, 05:26 PM, said:

some want freedom, some don't.. to say the military can't or won't avail a country whose population wants freedom (and whose military backs that position) seems fallacious to me

But isn't this country on the whole strongly opposed to the current, what shall I call it, military mission?

yes... some in different ways though... for example, some were against it originally but now know we can't just pull out overnight... some were for it originally, found out there were lies told and then became opponents... but that just goes to my last point above

[onoway]

When I hear people speak about war, I think of the time (I believe ww1) when the Germans and the English in a battle, stopped for Christmas. Someone made the first overture,they crossed no man's land, and instead of shelling and shooting each other, had a day of socializing, sharing, singing and celebrating Christmas. The next day they went back to trying to kill one another. I didn't believe this story when I first heard it, but apparently it's true...