The Bush Regime

[momoftwins]

<p>UCLAri,</p>

<p>Thanks for contributing to our discussion in a thoughtful way. Please stick around. We’re typically quite civil to each other, even when we disagree. ;)</p>

[Zaphod]

<p>

Call me crazy, but what difference is it if you make political remarks or I make political remarks? I don’t see why I can’t be interested in the issues surrounding the military and the SAs as much as you. I may not have attended one, nor will I ever, but I do plan on working in security policy, so this is an issue that matters to me.

And that’s perfectly fine. Please go find a board dedicated to political and national security topics, and post to your heart’s content over there. THIS is a board about the Service Academies and for the candidates, parents, Midshipmen, and Alumni to converse.</p>

<p>It’s a bit of an exclusive club, you see.</p>

<p>

But the topic is the Bush regime, and then swung to the issue of liberal attitudes regarding the military, so how is this so off the mark?

The topic is completely innapropriate for this forum, and was purposfully worded to stir the pot.</p>

<p>You DO see that, don’t you?</p>

<p>

Because everything is inevitably political, whether we like it or not.

WRONG. My respect for the military has ZERO to do with politics or who is in the White House. I have ALWAYS respected the military, from Ford, through Carter (God help us!), through Reagan (God helped us!), Bush Sr., Clinton, and now Bush 43. My respect for them is based upon what they DO, EVERY DAY, for US. </p>

<p>

I understand that the military serves a vital, admirable, and altogether honorable function in society. But, I also recognize that the armed forces are also an interest group (check out what Eisenhower said about this) who will make appeals to improve their situation (this is one of the reasons that the Founding Fathers feared a standing military).

And? The Founders feared a standing military because all to often that military was utilized by the government against the people. Do you anticipate that happening anytime soon?</p>

<p>

Now, like I said, in today’s world a military is necessary and a good. However, it’s a good that costs us a lot of money, lives, and capital to maintain.

Anything of VALUE costs, or else it’s not very valuable.</p>

<p>

Up until this point, that means that I give almost 100% respect and support. But would I support the military during a coup (knock on wood that it never happens)? No. Of course, that’s just a silly hypothetical, right?

Yes, it’s silly. So, are you admitting that you give “almost” 100% support to the military because of a “silly hypothetical”?</p>

<p>Ooooooooookay. :rolleyes:</p>

<p>

I agree that there is definitely an absurd anti-military streak that warrants countering.

The understatement of CC history! Don’t let the “I support the troops but not the war” thing fool you, either. Look at how they want to hang these Marines up without so much as a trial. THAT’S SUPPORT?</p>

<p>

However, I suppose I tend to be a bit too clasically liberal (think Founding Fathers) to really believe that we should swing to the too-forgiving side either.

The Founding Fathers were anything but liberal, classical or not. They believed in BOTH individual freedom and responsibility, and limited government. Period. There is only ONE political ideology (not PARTY, mind you) that still believes in that, and it is most definitely NOT liberalism.</p>

<p>

If the current executive is making poor strategic decisions, there SHOULD be an outcry from the soldiers.

WRONG. They get their chance at the ballot box just like everyone else does. Aside from that, they have sworn an oath. The officers to the Constitution, and the enlisted to obey the orders of those appointed over them. “Conscientious Objector” is simply a long way of spelling “Coward”.</p>

<p>

It should be grassroots level statements.

You have no earthly idea how a military organization operates, do you? First clue: It is NOT a democracy.</p>

<p>

Am I calling for mutiny? Of course not.

Sure sounds like it.</p>

<p>

But neither should anyone be held to the standard of fighting without questioning.

They can question all they want, so long as they follow their orders.</p>

<p>

If you believe that an executive makes poor decisions (and Lord knows some can and do), then lobby against it! Vote them out! Be as active a citizen as your station will allow you to be.

You are not allowed to lobby against the Commander in Chief in a manner that can be seen as reflecting the opinion of the military. It is against the UCMJ, SPECIFICALLY because the military cannot be seen as having any say in how the government is chosen. So, if you wear the uniform, and you think the clown in the CinC seat is an idiot, you have one choice: on election day, cast your vote for the other guy. Aside from that, either follow orders, or resign.</p>

<p>

But like I said, maybe I bought into the whole libertarian idealism of the Founders too much.

I wouldn’t apply the term “libertarian” to the Founders, either. At least not the way it’s used today.</p>

[Zaphod]

<p>

Why do you guys, especially Zaphod, seem to hate Berkeley so much? Im sure you dont know too much about the school.

</p>

<p>You cannot possibly be serious about this question.</p>

<p>Seriously…</p>

[nurseypoo]

<p>Amen to that!</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>Zaphod,</p>

<p>I’d reply to your replies, but I’d prefer to just let the thread die.</p>

<p>I suppose you’d prefer it this way as well.</p>

[UCLAri]

<p>momoftwins,</p>

<p>Thanks, but I’m leaving. Civil is hardly what I’d call my two experiences with SA threads. Once bitten, twice shy as they say.</p>

<p>I suppose emotions just run too high with these issues, and otherwise decent guys like Zaphod get heated up.</p>

[TacticalNuke]

<p>Good riddance. Hoorah!</p>

[raimius]

<p>UCLAri, Thank you for your thoughtful posts. There have been too many attacks from people unconnected to the SAs on this forum recently. I am glad that you can remain calm in your posts. We welcome discussion, but this is a forum about the SAs (with emphasis on admissions, of course). Most of us try to keep politics out of this forum.</p>

<p>Thanks for remaining civil. Please stick around if you are interested in SA discussions. </p>

<p>(I’m going to try to let this die now.)</p>

[Midshpmnboy15]

<p>i really don’t know how to respond to this embisile…well i’ll say this i’m not fighting for the politicians with no offense to people who are but i’m fighting for the american people and the values with which this country was founded on…and those values are the things about america that need to be protected more than the politicians…and believe it or not i also will say that i am fighting to protect this idiot who started this post</p>

[Wheelah44]

<p>imbecile my friend. imbecile.</p>

[Zaphod]

<p>He doesn’t rate having his insults spelled correctly. ;)</p>

[Midshpmnboy15]

<p>I love when people correct m spelling on the internet…Reef points describes one who does so as a “GEEK”</p>

[Zaphod]

<p>Would it be “geek” or “sweat”?</p>

<p>Or both? </p>

<p>Hmmmmmm… :rolleyes:</p>

<p>:D</p>

[Wheelah44]

<p>lol i bet you’d prefer hand to hand combat you motivator.</p>

[sealion0101]

<p>Wheelah, personally I got a good laugh at the spelling correction, your tone came through perfectly.</p>

<p>Midshpmanboy15 - all in good fun.</p>

[Zaphod]

<p>

lol i bet you’d prefer hand to hand combat you motivator.

</p>

<p>Who me? :D</p>

<p>I am a weapon of mass destruction, as I took hand-to-gland, wrestling, boxing, and Judo at USNA!</p>

<p>:rolleyes:</p>

<p>Yep! They taught us just enough to get our asses kicked! :D</p>

[Midshpmnboy15]

<p>lmao haha…i’m sure it was excellent training</p>