US Troops are "Warriors" now?

[DeBunkem]

Yes this is religion, too, IMO. I'm puzzled by the effort of the Pentagon to implant the idea of US troops as "warriors." I find it repulsive. What other advanced nation is doing this? Is "soldier" too tame? "Warrior" connotates bloodthirsty barbarian hordes such as Goths, Huns, and Mongols. "Soldier" connotates the armies os civilized nations with advanced laws, such as Rome, England, and the (former) USA. With reports on how much the US military is becoming infiltrated with militant Fundamentalists, (i.e., the USAF cadet scandals)i would suggest a sinister long-term strategy.
Which sounds better next to "Holy"? Holy Soldiers or Holy Warriors? I'm just sayin'. Holy Moly I hope I'm wrong but it would also fit the direction that AIPAC is pushing us. Obama said their control over our policy is "sacrosanct."

Here's a picture of Pastor John Hagee (Google 'im) forya:

[MagusYanam]

I can see why you wouldn't want to answer the WWII question. If you agree that war is sometimes needed, you also have to agree reasonable people can disagree about other conflicts without you demonizing them. For someone with a sig line about not judging you sure like to do it.

I did answer your WWII question.

I did not daemonise anyone.

If you cannot debate the issue civilly without attacking me personally, this discussion is over.

[East of Eden]

I did answer your WWII question.

Agreed, just pointing out it kind of wrecks your argument.

I did not daemonise anyone.

It comes close when you say those who support wars you disagree with are for 'imperial violence' and are for Pontius Pilate over Jesus.

If you cannot debate the issue civilly without attacking me personally, this discussion is over.

Suit yourself, the comment about judgement was just a statement of fact. You claim to be against judging, but feel free to do it when it comes to US wars, some of which I would call wars of liberation.

[MagusYanam]

Agreed, just pointing out it kind of wrecks your argument.

Not at all. WWII was not a war of choice - at least, not on our end. Germany was ultimately responsible for the declaration of war, first against Poland, then against Russia, then against us.

That's not a matter of opinion. That is a matter of historical fact.

It comes close when you say those who support wars you disagree with are for 'imperial violence' and are for Pontius Pilate over Jesus.

I wasn't naming names and I wasn't judging anyone personally. But Pontius Pilate was the representation in Scripture of the forces of Empire - claiming beneficence over and friendship to the crowds of Judaea while keeping them militarily subjugated and conniving with the Temple authorities to manipulate them into accepting Barabbas over Jesus. It is not a personal judgment to claim an analogy to what the United States did in Iraq.

Suit yourself, the comment about judgement was just a statement of fact. You claim to be against judging, but feel free to do it when it comes to US wars, some of which I would call wars of liberation.

To be completely honest, you're not the one to make that call. That right and that responsibility belongs to the Vietnamese, the Nicaraguans, the Granadans, the Chileans, the Southern Slavs and the Iraqis - all of whom should rate high enough as human beings to determine for themselves whether or not they are being occupied. Otherwise, that only goes to reinforce my point about the parallels to Rome (who often claimed to be 'liberating' the peoples they subjugated).

[East of Eden]

Not at all. WWII was not a war of choice - at least, not on our end. Germany was ultimately responsible for the declaration of war, first against Poland, then against Russia, then against us.

That's not a matter of opinion. That is a matter of historical fact.

It is, I'm glad to hear you say some wars are justified.

I wasn't naming names and I wasn't judging anyone personally. But Pontius Pilate was the representation in Scripture of the forces of Empire - claiming beneficence over and friendship to the crowds of Judaea while keeping them militarily subjugated and conniving with the Temple authorities to manipulate them into accepting Barabbas over Jesus. It is not a personal judgment to claim an analogy to what the United States did in Iraq.

I would just be careful about calling those on the other side of a political disagreement un-Christian. To me, using hindsight to opine on the rightness of past conflicts is peripheral to Christianity. Much more important is living by the Golden Rule, and making Christ Lord of all aspects of our life.

To be completely honest, you're not the one to make that call.

Neither of us are, its a matter of opinion.

That right and that responsibility belongs to the Vietnamese, the Nicaraguans, the Granadans, the Chileans, the Southern Slavs and the Iraqis - all of whom should rate high enough as human beings to determine for themselves whether or not they are being occupied.

The problem is, most on your previous list lived in oppressive nations before our liberative actions, and weren't formerly in a position to decide anything for themselves.

Otherwise, that only goes to reinforce my point about the parallels to Rome (who often claimed to be 'liberating' the peoples they subjugated).

Because some claims of liberation are false doesn't mean all are. You seem to say we shouldn't ever intervene on behalf of oppressed people. Let's say in the parable of the Good Samaritan, the Samaritan had come upon the victim in the act of being assaulted. By your reasoning the Samaritan would have sat by until the assault was over, and then helped the victim. The proper application of the Golden Rule in that case would have been to stop the assault.

[MagusYanam]

It is, I'm glad to hear you say some wars are justified.

There is a difference between necessary and justified, even in JWT (which is, again, only one of two positions that may be held on the issue within Christian thought).

I would just be careful about calling those on the other side of a political disagreement un-Christian. To me, using hindsight to opine on the rightness of past conflicts is peripheral to Christianity.

Speak for yourself. I opposed the Iraq War since 2002 when most people (including many liberals) supported it, and will continue to oppose it until we leave.

The problem is, most on your previous list lived in oppressive nations before our liberative actions, and weren't formerly in a position to decide anything for themselves.

That's what we said about the Filipinos a century ago. Generally, I wouldn't imagine that being killed and being occupied by a foreign superpower would be their first choice. Certainly not for the Vietnamese or the Nicaraguans.

Because some claims of liberation are false doesn't mean all are.

They have been often, in our case. Ask the Filipinos, the Vietnamese, the Nicaraguans, the Grenadans or the Iraqis.

You seem to say we shouldn't ever intervene on behalf of oppressed people. Let's say in the parable of the Good Samaritan, the Samaritan had come upon the victim in the act of being assaulted. By your reasoning the Samaritan would have sat by until the assault was over, and then helped the victim. The proper application of the Golden Rule in that case would have been to stop the assault.

That's a specious analogy if ever I heard one. The Good Samaritan wouldn't have hired professional thugs (like Xe) to beat off the attackers and then allowed the thugs to kick the attacked man while he was down. Besides, the point of the tale was in the first place to speak up on behalf of political and religious outsiders. Samaritans did not have as many rights as Jews and certainly not as many as Romans had; yet Jesus told the disciples that the Samaritan who does the will of God is also your neighbour.

We don't serve oppressed people by further contributing to their oppression and making them our client states as we did in Iraq. The US certainly haven't proven good neighbours to the rest of the world in this escapade, who largely opposed the war, choosing instead to insult and ignore them. Justice is never served through the corporate interests of the likes of Halliburton and Xe, and it is never served through self-serving, hubristic imperialism, arrogating to ourselves the mandate to remake the world in our political image through military force. The entire point of the Iraq War was to begin building a Pax Americana - even the rhetoric the pushers of this war were using invoked the imagery and grandeur of Augustus (the Pax Romana)!

[East of Eden]

They have been often, in our case. Ask the Filipinos,

Already said the Spanish-American War was wrong.

the Vietnamese,

Ask the boat people

Vietnamese boat people

A family of boat people rescued by an American Navy shipEvents resulting from the Vietnam War led many people in Cambodia, Laos, and especially Vietnam to become refugees in the late 1970s and 1980s, after the fall of Saigon. In Vietnam, the new communist government sent many people who supported the old government in the South to "re-education camps", and others to "new economic zones." An estimated 1 million people were imprisoned without formal charges or trials.[1] According to published academic studies in the United States and Europe, 165,000 people died in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam's re-education camps.[1] Thousands were abused or tortured.[1] These factors, coupled with poverty and the total destruction of the country that happened during the Vietnam war, caused hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese to flee the country. In 1979, Vietnam was at war (Sino-Vietnamese War) with the People's Republic of China (PRC). Many ethnic Chinese living in Vietnam, who felt that the government's policies directly targeted them, also became "boat people." On the open seas, the boat people had to confront forces of nature, and elude pirates.

In Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge, after the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, murdered millions of people in the "Killing Fields" massacres. Many people attempted to escape. The previous US bombings of Cambodia also killed hundreds of thousands of people, something that created a huge amount of refugees and according to some historians and journalists facilitated the Khmer Rouge way to power.

the Nicaraguans,

What exactly are you objecting to? We've been involved in Nicaragua many times.

the Grenadans

Apparently Wikipedia did ask the Grenadans: "It enjoyed broad public support in the United States[6] as well as widespread support by the people of Grenada, who viewed the post-coup regime as illegitimate.[7] October 25 is a national holiday in Grenada, called Thanksgiving Day, to commemorate this event."

We prevented Grenada from becoming a Cuban colony.

or the Iraqis.

The example of a free Iraq is prompting the Iranians to reject 'government by Mullah'.

You seem to say we shouldn't ever intervene on behalf of oppressed people. Let's say in the parable of the Good Samaritan, the Samaritan had come upon the victim in the act of being assaulted. By your reasoning the Samaritan would have sat by until the assault was over, and then helped the victim. The proper application of the Golden Rule in that case would have been to stop the assault.

That's a specious analogy if ever I heard one. The Good Samaritan wouldn't have hired professional thugs (like Xe) to beat off the attackers

The victim wouldn't have cared who saved him.

and then allowed the thugs to kick the attacked man while he was down.

Did I suggest that?

We don't serve oppressed people by further contributing to their oppression and making them our client states as we did in Iraq.

You seem to think being a US ally is a terrible thing. Of course to the left, its always America's fault. Kind of makes you wonder why the rest of the world are breaking their necks to come here.

[MagusYanam]

Ask the boat people

US military intervention didn't do anything to help them (obviously) and couldn't have done anything to help them other than offer them safe haven. And bringing up the Khmer Rouge is disingenuous - there is the argument which claims that the success of the Khmer Rouge and the 'killing fields' were a result of US intervention in SE Asia rather than early withdrawal.

Point about Grenada, though. But just having them want us to intervene (though it may be a 'necessary condition') is not sufficient licence to do so. I would argue that nonviolent intervention and 'soft power' was the only morally tenable course of action; JWT would argue that all criteria be met in advance (which they weren't).

What exactly are you objecting to? We've been involved in Nicaragua many times.

Our support of the Contra death squads in the 1980's.

The example of a free Iraq is prompting the Iranians to reject 'government by Mullah'.

Evidence? To my knowledge, the protesters in Iran have not invoked the example of Iraq at all in their demonstrations against the Ahmedinejad government. They certainly haven't wanted us to intervene since our invasion of Iraq. Probably a lot of them remember Mosaddegh and Operation Ajax.

The victim wouldn't have cared who saved him.

Apparently, in this case, they do. Most of them wanted us out three years ago, and have had a fairly consistently dim view of the occupation throughout.

You seem to think being a US ally is a terrible thing. Of course to the left, its always America's fault. Kind of makes you wonder why the rest of the world are breaking their necks to come here.

No - I have never said it was the fault of America as a whole, but of those who would remake America in the image of the Roman Empire. You are accusing me of thinking things I do not and having said things I have not.

[McCulloch]

Moderator Caution

For someone with a sig line about not judging you sure like to do it.

Please refrain from making any negative comments about the other debaters. Address the issues being debated rather than the personalities of the debaters.

[DeBunkem]

It is, I'm glad to hear you say some wars are justified.

A good start would be to ask, "Have they been declared by Congress after due deliberation?" The last time this happened was WWII, which was also the last time we fought to actually defend the people and borders of the USA. Ever since, politicians and corporatists have bypassed and tamed Congress to go along with their Imperialist predations. They pick a resource they want to exploit and find a way to make the people living there our enemy.

[Choir Loft]

It is, I'm glad to hear you say some wars are justified.

A good start would be to ask, "Have they been declared by Congress after due deliberation?" The last time this happened was WWII, which was also the last time we fought to actually defend the people and borders of the USA. Ever since, politicians and corporatists have bypassed and tamed Congress to go along with their Imperialist predations. They pick a resource they want to exploit and find a way to make the people living there our enemy.

Excellent post. The posts here which cite WWII fail to recognize both the legality of US participation and the need to preserve our own nation. In addition, they also fail to recognize the rise of the military-industrial complex first mentioned by President Eisenhower in 1960.

Since 1960, the foreign wars in which the US has been engaged have been illegal (no declaration by congress), immoral (the causes have been fabrications), and immensely expensive in terms of blood and treasure. They have, however, been extremely profitable for large corporations and the influence of the Pentagon.

In 1949, the National Security Council was established and subsequently subverted the powers of congress to debate upon military issues and to declare war, which is mandated by the Constitution.

No major war since 1960 has been just or legal. All have been started or extended by Pentagon manipulations. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was the justification for escalation of the Viet Nam civil war. The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and subsequent Gulf War was caused by State Dept. instigation. The US convinced Sadam Hussein that we would do nothing if he invaded. He did and the Pentagon used it as an excuse to mount an attack. The current 'war against terror' is a misnomer as we have goaded Muslim extremist groups into attacking American interests. Bin Laden himself was quoted as saying this was the justification for 9/11 as it continues to be.

The purpose of the war on terror is to keep the US population in line with Pentagon agendas by means of fear. The result will be increasing restrictions and loss of liberty, continuation of war in several locations, and increasing economic pressure.

We cannot sustain war and military adventures throughout the world. Either by popular demand or economic pressure it will eventually stop.

How much damage will have been done to our way of living by then and how many of our liberties will have been lost?