ok then, what did you expect them to do?

They already lost. Now it's up to the military to decide.

I thought the military took to long to ‘finalize’ the findings and finish up their report, so now it is up to the congress to decide on their own. At any rate, the military shouldn't get to make policy, especially not on such politically charged matters. I think they should only get to offer their advice to the government, nothing more. If it were otherwise, America would cease to be a constitutional republic and would become a military dictatorship of some sort.

The Republic wrote:I thought the military took to long to ‘finalize’ the findings and finish up their report, so now it is up to the congress to decide on their own. At any rate, the military shouldn't get to make policy, especially not on such politically charged matters. I think they should only get to offer their advice to the government, nothing more. If it were otherwise, America would cease to be a constitutional republic and would become a corporate dictatorship of some sort.

Fixed that for you.

And, it isn't?

The whole thing misses what the fundamental role of the modern military is these days. It quite simply isnt unlimited violence as required. Generally its policing with tanks and rifles as backup

Its the ability to deal without killing unless absolutely needed people vastly different to you. If a soldier can't work with a fellow gay colleague how are they going to deal with an Arab child in Iraq or a earthquake victim in Haiti.

I don't know what recruitment campaigns are like in the US, but those for the UK military put a very strong emphasis on humantarian aid, to recruit on the basis of 'defence' would be blatently absurd

mrjonno wrote:The whole thing misses what the fundamental role of the modern military is these days. It quite simply isnt unlimited violence as required. Generally its policing with tanks and rifles as backup

Its the ability to deal without killing unless absolutely needed people vastly different to you. If a soldier can't work with a fellow gay colleague how are they going to deal with an Arab child in Iraq or a earthquake victim in Haiti.

I don't know what recruitment campaigns are like in the US, but those for the UK military put a very strong emphasis on humantarian aid, to recruit on the basis of 'defence' would be blatently absurd

Very good points. Although there's not much time spent emphasizing humanitarian aid around here. It is mostly recruitment on the basis of defense.
Isn't our military retarded?

Very good points. Although there's not much time spent emphasizing humanitarian aid around here. It is mostly recruitment on the basis of defense.
Isn't our military retarded?

Does someone who joins the US army really think they are ever going to fight of an enemy invasion, it the very unlikely event it isnt going to be an invasion with tanks and infantry its going to be with nuclear missiles

mrjonno wrote:The whole thing misses what the fundamental role of the modern military is these days. It quite simply isnt unlimited violence as required. Generally its policing with tanks and rifles as backup

I agree.

mrjonno wrote:Its the ability to deal without killing unless absolutely needed people vastly different to you. If a soldier can't work with a fellow gay colleague how are they going to deal with an Arab child in Iraq or a earthquake victim in Haiti.

Best argument I've heard yet. Embarrassed I didn't think of this myself.

mrjonno wrote:I don't know what recruitment campaigns are like in the US, but those for the UK military put a very strong emphasis on humantarian aid, to recruit on the basis of 'defence' would be blatently absurd

You lost me there. Armies must retain their warfighting abilities. Armies that solely engage in peace keeping missions will have their heads handed to them by a force that wants to fight and is seasoned by experience. Many of the NATO troops killed in the Bosnian conflict died as a result of losing their warfighting skills.

Fighting skills are perishable. Use it or lose it. I haven't boxed in many years, but I was very good when I was in my 20's. I still have the skills and the knowledge but I know better than to climb into the ring with a guy who's been training & sparring every day. It would take me quite a while to regain the reflexes I've lost.

An Army's purpose is defense. When some other tribe shows up and is thinking about taking what you have, it all comes down to "What are you going to do about it".

Hmm, I wonder why conservative pastors are so keen that no-one is asked about their sexuality?

No of course a military is required to defend a country and kill enemies but that isnt what anyone joining up is going to be spending the majority of thie time doing. 50-100 years ago war fighting would be just about the only role of the military but things have changed

Many of the NATO troops killed in the Bosnian conflict died as a result of losing their warfighting skills.

No they died because they werent there to fight a war but to stop one, which is good for the civilians involved but not so good for the NATO soliders. NATO foreign policy was to stop the war as it was destabilising to Europe and possibly the rest of NATO. The soldiers died there for that foreign policy (which was a good one in my opinion).

Or to summarise the role of modern soldier is to implement government foreign policy whether its war or peace keeping

That's the problem right there, you can't put a rheostat on bullets.

NineOneFour wrote:

The Republic wrote:I thought the military took to long to ‘finalize’ the findings and finish up their report, so now it is up to the congress to decide on their own. At any rate, the military shouldn't get to make policy, especially not on such politically charged matters. I think they should only get to offer their advice to the government, nothing more. If it were otherwise, America would cease to be a constitutional republic and would become a corporate dictatorship of some sort.

Fixed that for you.

And, it isn't?

No, you'll fix nothing with those same old tired, superficial and super simplistic cliches. Corporate ‘dictatorships’ exist only within the corporations controlled by the dictates of their board of directors. Beyond that, the corporations can only lobby concerned investors and appeal to the economic exigencies of the country or a special interest group that holds sway over some segment of society. Those are the rules of the game, if you don't like their corporate agenda, you can always lobby your peoples in congress or raise awareness and organize lobby groups of your own: that's how the corporations that controlled america's insurance industry lost their monopoly over our nation's health care sector (you cynical, silly goose).

The Republic wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:

The Republic wrote:I thought the military took to long to ‘finalize’ the findings and finish up their report, so now it is up to the congress to decide on their own. At any rate, the military shouldn't get to make policy, especially not on such politically charged matters. I think they should only get to offer their advice to the government, nothing more. If it were otherwise, America would cease to be a constitutional republic and would become a corporate dictatorship of some sort.

Fixed that for you.

And, it isn't?

No, you'll fix nothing with those same old tired, superficial and super simplistic cliches. Corporate ‘dictatorships’ exist only within the corporations controlled by the dictates of their board of directors. Beyond that, the corporations can only lobby concerned investors and appeal to the economic exigencies of the country or a special interest group that holds sway over some segment of society. Those are the rules of the game, if you don't like their corporate agenda, you can always lobby your peoples in congress or raise awareness and organize lobby groups of your own: that's how the corporations that controlled america's insurance industry lost their monopoly over our nation's health care sector (you cynical, silly goose).

i'm sorry, but do you live in the same country as I do? Corporations give millions of dollars and now can essentially buy elected representatives outright, thanks to the Republicanoid SCOTUS decision.

Organize lobby groups of your own? That's a laugh riot.

America's insurance industry lost their monopoly over our nation's health care sector? When, in 1968 when Medicare was passed?

mrjonno wrote:
I don't know what recruitment campaigns are like in the US, but those for the UK military put a very strong emphasis on humantarian aid, to recruit on the basis of 'defence' would be blatently absurd

From the ones I remember they put a strong emphasis on dicking about on a beach

Alnilam wrote:

mrjonno wrote:
I don't know what recruitment campaigns are like in the US, but those for the UK military put a very strong emphasis on humantarian aid, to recruit on the basis of 'defence' would be blatently absurd

From the ones I remember they put a strong emphasis on dicking about on a beach

Does it mention education and healthcare as well?, not relevant here as you get it anyway

m?

NineOneFour wrote:

The Republic wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:

The Republic wrote:I thought the military took to long to ‘finalize’ the findings and finish up their report, so now it is up to the congress to decide on their own. At any rate, the military shouldn't get to make policy, especially not on such politically charged matters. I think they should only get to offer their advice to the government, nothing more. If it were otherwise, America would cease to be a constitutional republic and would become a corporate dictatorship of some sort.

Fixed that for you.

And, it isn't?

No, you'll fix nothing with those same old tired, superficial and super simplistic cliches. Corporate ‘dictatorships’ exist only within the corporations controlled by the dictates of their board of directors. Beyond that, the corporations can only lobby concerned investors and appeal to the economic exigencies of the country or a special interest group that holds sway over some segment of society. Those are the rules of the game, if you don't like their corporate agenda, you can always lobby your peoples in congress or raise awareness and organize lobby groups of your own: that's how the corporations that controlled america's insurance industry lost their monopoly over our nation's health care sector (you cynical, silly goose).

i'm sorry, but do you live in the same country as I do? Corporations give millions of dollars and now can essentially buy elected representatives outright, thanks to the Republicanoid SCOTUS decision.

ok, elected representatives are elected by popular vote, so while a corporation can now campaign on behalf of a candidate, they cannot purchase votes from individuals who make up the electorate, hence, they cannot essentially buy elected representatives outright. Such an assertion is incoherent and unintelligible, you cannot buy elected representatives outright, because then they would cease to be elected representatives.

So then, why must your argument resort to gibberish and outlandish exaggerations? Democracy and capitalism were not designed by god, they will never be crafted into a perfect system and the Supreme Court will sometimes err in favor of one at the expense of the other, since the Supreme Court justices are humans who are not infallible or ideologically unassailable either. You expect the system to work perfect? and do so all of the time? I think if the republic survived Roger Taney's crazy conclusion in Dred V Scott and the schizoid interpretation of the 14th Amendment in Plessy V Ferguson, then we can probably weather this storm too. Have a little faith in the system. If you're a 'progressive' person, then it usually only gets better - but only if you're willing go the distance (and see it through in the long run.)

NineOneFour wrote:
Organize lobby groups of your own? That's a laugh riot.

You scoff? If some old guy could start a political movement of mass hysteria called the ‘Tea-Party’ just by putting on a whig and foaming at the mouth a bit - and then posting it on youtube, then sure, why not? This is America man, you gotta know how to play the game and work the system.

NineOneFour wrote:
America's insurance industry lost their monopoly over our nation's health care sector? When, in 1968 when Medicare was passed?

I'm not sure, I really don't know. I thought they were something like 1/6 of the national economy or something, and now I assume they'll be occupying less of that once they are forced to kneel and are pinned under the jackboot of the government when the feds finally reign them in now that they've passed the reform bill (or something like that).

The Republic wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:

The Republic wrote:

NineOneFour wrote:

The Republic wrote:I thought the military took to long to ‘finalize’ the findings and finish up their report, so now it is up to the congress to decide on their own. At any rate, the military shouldn't get to make policy, especially not on such politically charged matters. I think they should only get to offer their advice to the government, nothing more. If it were otherwise, America would cease to be a constitutional republic and would become a corporate dictatorship of some sort.

Fixed that for you.

And, it isn't?

No, you'll fix nothing with those same old tired, superficial and super simplistic cliches. Corporate ‘dictatorships’ exist only within the corporations controlled by the dictates of their board of directors. Beyond that, the corporations can only lobby concerned investors and appeal to the economic exigencies of the country or a special interest group that holds sway over some segment of society. Those are the rules of the game, if you don't like their corporate agenda, you can always lobby your peoples in congress or raise awareness and organize lobby groups of your own: that's how the corporations that controlled america's insurance industry lost their monopoly over our nation's health care sector (you cynical, silly goose).

i'm sorry, but do you live in the same country as I do? Corporations give millions of dollars and now can essentially buy elected representatives outright, thanks to the Republicanoid SCOTUS decision.

ok, elected representatives are elected by popular vote, so while a corporation can now campaign on behalf of a candidate, they cannot purchase votes from individuals who make up the electorate, hence, they cannot essentially buy elected representatives outright. Such an assertion is incoherent and unintelligible, you cannot buy elected representatives outright, because then they would cease to be elected representatives.

Elected in name only. A representative running for re-election who has 10 times as much money to blow as his competitor will likely win.

To believe otherwise is naive.

So then, why must your argument resort to gibberish and outlandish exaggerations? Democracy and capitalism were not designed by god, they will never be crafted into a perfect system and the Supreme Court will sometimes err in favor of one at the expense of the other, since the Supreme Court justices are humans who are not infallible or ideologically unassailable either. You expect the system to work perfect? and do so all of the time? I think if the republic survived Roger Taney's crazy conclusion in Dred V Scott and the schizoid interpretation of the 14th Amendment in Plessy V Ferguson, then we can probably weather this storm too. Have a little faith in the system. If you're a 'progressive' person, then it usually only gets better - but only if you're willing go the distance (and see it through in the long run.)

Sorry, I don't give a shit about the long run, and no, I don't expect perfection, but I do expect America to be at least on par with Western Europe and we're not. Not by a long shot.

Faith in the system? Why should I have faith in the system? Are you a theist or American exceptionalist or something? The system is obviously broken.

NineOneFour wrote:
Organize lobby groups of your own? That's a laugh riot.

You scoff? If some old guy could start a political movement of mass hysteria called the ‘Tea-Party’ just by putting on a whig and foaming at the mouth a bit - and then posting it on youtube, then sure, why not? This is America man, you gotta know how to play the game and work the system.

I'm sorry, if you think the Tea Party originated as anything but a GOP astroturf organization led by Dick Armey and Steve Forbes, you are sadly mistaken and uninformed.

NineOneFour wrote:
America's insurance industry lost their monopoly over our nation's health care sector? When, in 1968 when Medicare was passed?

I'm not sure, I really don't know. I thought they were something like 1/6 of the national economy or something, and now I assume they'll be occupying less of that once they are forced to kneel and are pinned under the jackboot of the government when the feds finally reign them in now that they've passed the reform bill (or something like that).

Ah, another uninformed opinion. The recently passed health care bill is merely a requirement to reign in the worst practices of the insurance companies, but as a typical anti-government free market worshipper or some such, you probably don't even realize what we haven't got in the way of health care.