Slashdot Mirror
America's Army As a High School Education Platform?
GamePolitics reports on a recent press release from the US Army which says they will be partnering with various military, education, and non-profit organizations to bring an education curriculum to high school students via America's Army. Quoting the press release:
"The partnership ... will incorporate Army technology, gaming and simulation resources to enhance student achievement in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The platform for the new curriculum is the America's Army PC game, a free online game that provides civilians with a virtual role in the US Army by introducing them to Army technologies, Rules of Engagement, training and missions. Used as a communications tool, the game has also been adapted for use within the military to produce effective and engaging virtual environments that enhance Soldier training in a number of areas including force protection, convoy survivability and nuclear, chemical and biological detection."
Is this a joke?
Lessons on how to obey without question.
What could possibly go wrong?
but your society has jumped the shark.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Kids will learn calculus if that makes their avatar level: "Look at this dude, I'm a level 5 scientist!" And when time comes to put down the game: "OMG I learned all this stuff and now I'm a scientist in real life too!"
So, will all military references be removed for educational purposes, or is this an attempt to militarize education, and sucker more kids into the US military, for more colonialism and adventurism?
And before anyone starts arguing, are *you* in the military? If not, and you agree with the miltitarization of education, and you are in your 20s or thirties, and not incapacitated, what excuse do you have for *not* being in the military, right now?
Oh, I see, like Dick Cheney: you have "other agendas" (read, get rich, and risk somebody else's kid's neck for your money).
mark
are we becoming more and more of a military "warrior" culture where we're not doing anything productive outside of our military industrial complex?
I think it's also disheartening that, for many kids growing up today, the only viable career path is the military.
I'm getting more and more disgusted with our Country.
If I remember correctly, Americas Army was never a lean mean beast. It was incredibly slow to load, and required decent hardware to run. Certainly won't be doing any of this on your schools machines that have integrated graphics cards.
Actually I took ROTC in high school. They covered illegal orders and UCMJ. They would go as far as to give you simple "illegal" order like calling at ease from a parade rest. The correct response was not to do it without question but to respond with "As you where sir!"
This was just High School ROTC and we covered things like war crimes and how saying "I was just following orders" is not an excuse.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
but your society has jumped the shark.
Where do you live? I will be your ex-american monkey boy!! Living underneath your bed will do.
...Hitler Youths and military propaganda for the 21st century. Nothing new here.
"Without curiosity and knowledge, the mind is a vast void. Without the mind, curiosity and knowledge are nonexistent."
This was just High School ROTC and we covered things like war crimes and how saying "I was just following orders" is not an excuse.
My how times have changed...
It sounds to me like they're modding the America's Army game to make physics simulators for students to try out, and maybe increase their interest in science or engineering. It's probably cheaper for the government to do this than to develop a whole new system that incorporates many of the same features AA already uses. Just because the programs are based off of a popular shooting game doesn't mean 15 year olds are going to be playing military shooters in school (although I'm sure many of them have no qualms over playing Halo, CoD, or Tom Clancy games). Likewise, playing a game based on the Unreal or Source engine doesn't necessarily mean you're playing a FPS.
what they need? isn't that what they already have?
Aren't we all mature and smart enough to not get sucked into being soldiers based on an Army sponsored math problem?
How many of you protesting this think there should be no restriction on violent video games because they don't really influence behavior?
You can't have it both ways.
... our armed senior class overlords.
Have gnu, will travel.
He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my
contempt.
Is this really a problem? Aren't we all smart/mature enough to not turn into soldiers because of a Army math problem?
How many of you protesting this idea also think there should not be restrictions on violent video games because they don't really influence behavior?
You can't have it both ways.
"Utilizing the gaming platform, PLTW, Ohio DOE and the America's Army team have developed a number of applications which will be implemented over the coming year to enhance PLTW's engineering curriculum, currently implemented in 3,000 middle schools and high schools nationwide. The first educational module will be incorporated into the PLTW Principles of Engineering course. Students will use the America's Army gaming technology to explore kinematics in a ballistics project. They will be able to test the accuracy of their calculations in the virtual environment to observe how different variables such as displacement, time, velocity and elevation angles affect the principles of engineering. They will be able to visualize a parabola trajectory and calculate the varied velocities, ranges, and angles of their device within the game. Students will also be able to 'drive' a vehicle around a virtual obstacle course as well as perform a virtual helicopter drop and determine how various factors will affect the physics of the activity."
Kind of like Lunar Lander, only with better graphics.
banned from college because of too many TK's
Not too different than what is taught in school anyway. This is just more overtly propaganda.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
When the military is actually involved in the non-ROTC curriculum of high schools, my children will be pulled from said schools. Period.
Currently, ROTC is elective. I suspect that this is the first step in a grade school-level indoctrination, solely for the purpose of hooking our children into the military. Now when it becomes REQUIRED, then all suspicions are off the table and they have become fact.
Regardless of the content, even if it IS simply to get more students into fields that the military needs, the military has NO business in the education system outside of their own institutions. I already spend a lot of time trying to explain/counter the propaganda foisted off on my children through the media.
I will NOT have my children indoctrinated by the military as part of their (REQUIRED BY LAW) education. If it becomes a requirement, then my family will be looking for ways in which to LEAVE this country. As is, I am already totally fucking embarrassed to be an American.
I'm thinking Portal would have been a fun way to teach physics.
I'm currently doing ROTC in college, and it really sickens me when people give the old argument that military personnel are trained to obey orders without question.
My experience is much the same as yours in JROTC; that is, we are being taught as future officers to question those orders which seem unreasonable or dangerous.
The main problem is that most people who have not had any exposure to the military do not know anything except what the media says. Nobody bothers to actually speak to a Marine, for example, because it's so much easier to just watch CNN for the REAL news. Ah well, I'm involved in what I am to protect the public's right to protest what I'm involved in, so I guess I shouldn't complain.
Quick! Someone post something about Microsoft so we all can act different.
I would love to see one of the 2LT's in my directorate tell a LTC that. Ah the laughs that would be had at their expense...
I always wanted a simulation that would allow me the visceral experience of getting an education, with out actually learning anything.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
And what about all those soldiers who don't ask the fundamental questions, like "why are we involved in an illegal war?" Had there been enough training to deal with such questions, most (if not all) soldiers would not have allowed themselves to follow the illegal order to deploy to Iraq.
Unfortunately for you and parent there, J/ROTC are nothing like the proper military :) *shrug* If you do join the actual military, you'll see it's much more of a clusterfuck, and yes, you're taught "disobey illegal orders" or what have you, but in actuality it's "keep your mouth shut and do it, or get demoted" because there are a lot of arseholes.
...I will never send my kids to a public school.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
They stopped supporting the Linux at Mac clients at v2.5. 'Nuff said. FFS it uses the Unreal engine!
So being locked into an eight year commitment to the United States Navy is not the "actual" military, according to you?
I remain mystefied as to the origin of the "illegal war" argument. Congress authorized the President to invade and occupy Iraq in accordance with the War Powers Act of 1973 - how is that illegal? Not even the UN has challenged the legality of the US presence in Iraq.
Jack Thompson accuses games of corrupting our youth: results in moral indignation from Slashdot, saying that games don't turn anyone into anytihng.
Schools mod America's Army for educational purposes: results in moral indignation from Slashdot, saying that the military is using games to brainwash people.
Don't know if any individuals hold to both views, but it's interesting how these seem to be vocal opinions.
An illegal order is something like "Shoot this prisoner we just captured. I don't want to fucking bring along extra baggage for 24 hours until we can get him to the rear." These kinds of orders are rare enough that most people go their entire enlistment without coming upon an illegal order.
Most people in the Army are not crazy and are reasonably well-natured enough that stuff that falls into the category of "illegal orders" are very uncommon.
The laughs would belong to the 2LTs if the colonel ordered them to kill an entire family who lived outside the city, but too close to the base and refused to move. That is an illegal order, and I doubt many LTCs issue such commands.
I'm an Air Force Major, and this is a terrible idea. I would never want my child to join the US Armed Forces under the current regime.
Most of our enlisted people are gung-ho, but (frankly) we officers are paid to think.
And many of us think that Iraq was a way for certain corporate entities to profit through sweetheart contracts and the like.
The way our leaders think is this: "Even if we spend $3 billion of taxpayer money, if we can make $100 off it - hey, that's $100 we didn't have".
Sorry - got a little off track there. But I did not join to be a mercenary for Cheney and Rumsfeld, inc.
My name is MAJ Paul Stanton and I am a former infantryman and current computer scientist in the US Army. The views that I present here are entirely my own and do not represent an âoeofficial statementâ for the government or military. In your comment, you insinuate that Army Soldiers obey without question and are members of a non-thinking organization. Please allow me to explain a little about the current operational environment that our Soldiers are fighting in and the educational preparation they receive prior to deploying overseas. We are fighting a complex, asymmetric, thinking enemy who constantly creates ambiguous situations that our Soldiers face daily. Our Soldiers must think and be creative to defeat this enemy â" and they do. You may not hear about it, because our media chooses to tell the isolated story of a mistake instead of the countless examples of Soldiers doing the right thing, but I have much experience in Iraq and Afghanistan that supports our thinking Soldiers. How do Soldiers prepare for the challenges that theyll face? There are many formal educational venues â" ROTC, West Point, and officer schooling for officers and Basic, Advanced Individual Training, and unit training for Soldiers. At each opportunity, Soldiers learn about ethical decision making and have the opportunity to practice via scenario based training (the same time of scenario based training that Americas Army supports). The result is an intelligent and capable Soldier who thinks on the battlefield. Yes, you probably have a mental picture of a negative instance â" one that the media discussed at length. . . .has it happened? Yes. But is it the extreme exception? Yes. Soldiers face âoeshoot / no-shootâ scenarios in real time, with real bullets, on a daily basis. They make the right decisions â" they are not automatons, but rather smart, competent, ethically-minded people who want nothing more than to do the right thing.
Please take the time to think about the challenges Soldiers face, and then consider how they can operate without thinking. I believe that you will find that it would be impossible.
This was just High School ROTC and we covered things like war crimes and how saying "I was just following orders" is not an excuse.
America follows laws against war-crimes? You wouldn't know it... Or do they only apply to low-level soldiers?
Because CNN said so. duh.
"Ah well, I'm involved in what I am to protect the public's right to protest what I'm involved in, so I guess I shouldn't complain."
Several years ago back in high-school I participated in a sort of summer seminar for youth in DC oriented about national security issues. We had these debates that we were supposed to participate in about various topics, one of which was the media at a time of war. During that time I had been planning on going into the service through one of the service acadamies and was gung-ho about serving (I've since then been rendered ineligible, but I wish I still could). In the debate I made a comment much like what you just said. Shut up every one of the hippy/liberal fools who were complaining about how many casualties there are in combat, including all the government officials there moderating.
It's pitiful that the whole "peace protester" mindset doesnt realize that they have the right to "protest" simply because someone was willing to fight and die to give it to them. In return, they give them scorn, spittle, and rejection. Why do people think that by disarming themselves they will be protected like ostriches sticking their head in the sand? Think about it next time you complain about the "injustice" of war.
PS i know ostriches dont really do that, but you know what i mean.
Yeah, look at this Congress. :)
being nannied in a para-military fun camp is different to being on the battlefield.
I have a long history of military personnel in my family, they remind me constantly that while there are "bad" orders that you aren't supposed to follow, insubordination and it's unfriendly family of charges aren't something to be fucked with.
I don't any experience with ROTC, etc., but I would note that its critical for a democracy for the armed forces to obey legal orders.
Ultimately, to my understanding, the military chain of command goes up to president, whose authority derives from his election by the people.
You don't want folks carrying powerful weapons disregarding the instructions of the civilian leadership about who to attack or who not to attack, I think.
I learned a lot from my time in the AFJROTC. It has served me well all these years. Yea it is a real shame that so many people are so sure and secure in their ignorance.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
If parent is marked flamebait, then I guess Albert Einstein is my favourite troll ever.
What's the value of information that you don't know?
I would assume they do... I haven't seen any videos of masked American soldiers holding guns to the head of an innocent Civilian, demanding the Mexicans to cease their invasion of our country, then wrapping up the video by chopping off said civilian's head with a field knife...
The worst I've seen is some chick wiring a naked dude's fingertips to a car battery and making him wear a garbage bag while she zaps him.
Personally, I'd say he got off light.
Isn't it ironic?
I had no idea Einstein was so ignorant... He cursed the very thing that afforded him the opportunity to speak freely and share the benefit of his advances.
Thanks for this... What a fascinating dichotomy of perceptions...
Because the War Powers act is unconstitutional. The standing army is unconstitutional, as well. Congress has the power to declare war, not "authorize the use of force". The Federal Government can raise an army (appropriations for which can not be made for longer than two years; but per the 10th amendment, as well as historical practice, the state militias and the national guard are perfectly fine, as well as a reserve officer corps) and raise and maintain a navy (which includes the usmc, as the marine corps were formed in 1775, a year before the declaration of independence).
Are my arguments terribly practical in the "real world?" No. But impracticality doesn't make something incorrect.
I'm in the military and I obey and question.
--------
get jiggy w/ ayn rand!
Not even the UN has challenged the legality of the US presence in Iraq.
The US has veto rights in the security council. What exactly do you expect the UN to do? The UN has the same problem with Russia in Chechnya.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Isn't it ironic?
I had no idea Einstein was so ignorant... He cursed the very thing that afforded him the opportunity to speak freely and share the benefit of his advances.
Thanks for this... What a fascinating dichotomy of perceptions...
Actually he fled from this in Nazi Germany. The thing that prevented him from speaking freely and sharing his ideas.
Who shares the benefit of nuclear war anyway?
Thanks Major. I'm a retired Army Staff Sergeant (1967-1989) I get so tired of the knee jerk "soldiers are stupid automatons" meme. In my years in the Army I was privileged to live in placed like Germany, Thailand, Korean, The Philippines and Vietnam. I met great people in each of those places. In fact my wife is from Thailand and we have two grown children and two grandchildren. Some of the soldiers I was privileged to work with were not highly educated, but some were, and even the ones that were not were not dummies. I found over the years that in the average platoon there were men (and women, I had those too) that could do almost anything. Whatever the problem we faced, someone, sometimes more than one, had some experience in that area and could help us achieve whatever it was that we needed to do. I have also met highly educated people that needed to be escorted by someone that knew the difference between a door and a wall, else they confuse the two. The American soldier was not dumb during my term of service, which included the draftee Army of the 60's and early 70's. The quality of the troops that I meet now are far and away superior to those days. Those that speak of dumb order following robots are obviously people who can speak with the authority of someone who has no idea what he is talking about.
I've always assumed the people were mistaking the old religious doctrine defining a "just war" with a question of legality when they say that - It's a great deal simpler to label Iraq an unjust war than an illegal one. Regardless, though, there is a desire among many an internationalist to see the weight of international law increase to the point where we actually are subject to limits on our ability to wage preemptive war.
An illegal order is something like "Shoot this prisoner we just captured. I don't want to fucking bring along extra baggage for 24 hours until we can get him to the rear." These kinds of orders are rare enough that most people go their entire enlistment without coming upon an illegal order.
That's pretty blatant - killing somebody ought to give any normal person pause.
But there are much more subtle opportunities as well. See the case of Captain Lawrence Rockwood - who, in Haiti, believed "that American inaction in the face of human rights abuses was contrary to international law" and that he was "personally responsible for carrying out international law... That is the Nuremberg principle." Yet, during a military trial, he was convicted of multiple offenses, dismissed from the army and forfeited all pay.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
He's only cursing those who march joyfully, as well he should.
Most people in the Army are not crazy and are reasonably well-natured enough that stuff that falls into the category of "illegal orders" are very uncommon.
Yes, but then there are soldiers that rape 14-year old girls and kill their family to cover up the traces, that torture and sexually abuse naked prisoners, shoot pregnant women, or bomb wedding parties, all of which somehow spoils the beautiful picture. What a PR desaster!
Lessons on how to obey without question.
What could possibly go wrong?
My first response to this dribble was to Google "You cannot learn to give orders unless you first learn how to take orders", but it didn't show up a definite source for the phrase. It did, however, find this little gem: http://books.google.com/books?id=edpoFMjzD-IC&pg=PA185. Google won't easily let me copy and paste, so read the paragraph that starts with "Of course" and the two that follow for an examination of how American soldiers are trained to think for themselves.
Nothing for 6-digit uids?
Well, let's get out of the realm of the abstract for a moment. Anybody who is reasonably educated knows that an order to do something illegal, say to murder a prisoner, is not valid. So you don't have to feel so injured by misunderstanding. There's always going to be a few or course.
On the other hand, the principle that soldiers should not obey an illegal order is really only good as the ability of a soldier to distinguish between legal and illegal. There isn't always a clear line, say between legal, aggressive interrogation techniques and illegal torture. One of the benefits of ROTC is, hopefully, and officer corps with greater critical thinking skills. Still, by in large troops and the officers who lead them are not lawyers, they have to use their ethical common sense to get them through dilemmas.
The real danger when you give a man a lethal weapon and put him under orders is not particular to the military. It is group think. And don't say that isn't a problem. Every military person I have talked to has plenty of stories of bureaucratic pigheadedness on a massive scale.
I have known many military people over the years, and one thing that I think is fair to say is that good soldiers, marines, airmen and sailors have a can do attitude. That contributes to the both the dynamism and dysfunction of the military. Survival may trump that, but the first response to an order to take a fortified position is to view it as a solvable problem. This takes an implicit trust in the competence and judgment of your superiors, and that habit means going along with things you know are damnably stupid -- so long as they aren't illegal or immediately fatal.
Trust and a willingness to go along with anything short of illegality are good things in a soldier, but bad things in a citizen and especially a civilian leader. A good citizen has to question the competence and judgment of the leadership. When political mistakes reach the military, it's too late to question. One military saying I've heard is that shit rolls downhill, and it's the military's job to deal with the politicians' shit. A politician's ought to avoid handing the shit down to the military by being skeptical.
Skepticism is not a military virtue, which is not to say anything negative about military service. No profession is the beginning and end of all virtues. One of the problems I see of certain political viewpoints is that they like to promote the military as the entire repository of American virtue because obedience or rather willingness to get behind the mission, is so useful to them.
Look at Colin Powell, a great soldier, a top notch military leader, and a bad Secretary of State. He brought his military values of duty and loyalty into the job, and ended up being a catspaw. It wasn't that he accepted an order to lie; he accepted the mission he was given and took ownership of it, the way good soldiers do. It made him both useful and an object of scorn within the administration. By giving his superiors more than they deserved, he gave his true masters less.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The President has the constitutional power to authorize the use of force. This has been shown many times: the Civil War, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War 1...
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
Ah, the old "at least our inhuman b@st@rds are less inhuman than their inhuman b@st@ards" argument.
Inhuman b@st@rd.
HAL.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Actually that is fair statment. Soldiers of free country march not out of joy but out of duty. They understand that they are sacrificing so others can be protected. They take pride is service and not out of the shear glory of military service.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Ah, the old "you have no right to protest because we fought for your right to protest".
Gotta love the childlike logic.
HAL.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
An illegal order is something like "Shoot this prisoner we just captured. I don't want to fucking bring along extra baggage for 24 hours until we can get him to the rear." These kinds of orders are rare enough that most people go their entire enlistment without coming upon an illegal order. Most people in the Army are not crazy and are reasonably well-natured enough that stuff that falls into the category of "illegal orders" are very uncommon.
I am a regular America's Army player, and the article basically states that they'll be using the game's physics engine to provide interactive simulations, which is nothing to write home about.
Having said that, and as a father of a teen kid, I prefer him to play America's army in a clan that the PS3. For one thing, the game is overwhelmingly played only between humans (no AI), and there's no respawning in any scenario. so it's easy to learn simple basics like "cohoperation wins", "do not make mistakes" etc...
then again, the game itself attracts a certain kind of people, traditionalist who think "duty, honour, country"... if that kind of thing is not your bag, you can always move on. I do not think that will harm anyone.
"If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
The UN never, NEVER, has given permission for this war. Once the war finished, the UN aknowledged that USA was the occupant and granted some official recognition, wich is completely different. So, for the rest of the world (and I know you don't mind) this war is illegal.
He's only cursing those who march joyfully, as well he should.
Is it really that bad to love your country and enjoy the privilege of defending it?
If you're referring to the act of 'marching joyfully' by itself, I did rather enjoy marching in rank and file to music in my high school's marching band... I also spent 4 years in the U.S. Marine Corps, and rather enjoyed that as well.
I think Einstein was speaking with the perspective he was given by life in Germany. This is the perspective I did not take into consideration when originally interpreting his quote. If I had been in his shoes, had I been subjected to the same experiences, and had I been shown the same 'evil' side of 'patriotism', I may have formed the same opinion.
Growing up in America and spending 4 years in the American armed forces, I simply have no basis for comparison.
Actually I took ROTC in high school. They covered illegal orders and UCMJ. They would go as far as to give you simple "illegal" order like calling at ease from a parade rest. The correct response was not to do it without question but to respond with "As you where sir!"
Okay, this is drill and ceremony so it's supposed to be highly formalized, and we don't do this stuff on a day to day basis. You're wrong on several counts. First of all, it's perfectly valid to go from parade rest to at ease. You go from looking straight ahead to following the speaker. Second, when you're at parade rest, you really not supposed to speak. Third, it's were, not where.
To understand "as you were" you have to know that in D&C a command is made up of the preparatory command and command of execution. (It actually has to do with rhythm, believe it or not.) If you issue an incorrect preparatory command, you can "cancel" it with "as you were." If you issue an incorrect command of execution, you have to issue another command entirely.
For example, since the person controlling a formation is facing the formation, it's quite common to get your left and right mixed up. So you'll often hear "Left... as you were... right, face!"
If you ever want to go into the military, I strongly recommend that you do not do JROTC. It's a load of crap. I'd even avoid ROTC... sign up for three years and you can do ROTC if the military is right for you. Officers with no enlisted experience tend to suck a lot.
Yes, you can't get in trouble for refusing to obey an order that is not technically correct. However, at least from a combat arms perspective, what I teach my soldiers is that often the needs of the mission and common sense override technicalities. So long as they communicate with their leadership, they'll be fine.
And if you think about it, the big problem with robots is usually not following orders to the letter, but not doing anything when not told. Not surprisingly, the NCO Creed expressly states: "I will exercise initiative by taking appropriate action in the absence of orders." I think it's rather badly written, but there are many good points in it all the same.
He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my
contempt.
If you can come up with a better way to get a thousand people from point a to point b without vehicles, I'd love to hear it.
And why can't we sing? Are you some kind of fascist?
I took JROTC before the C64 hit the market. So it was a LONG time ago.
So yeah I forgot some of the drill rules.
I have not had to use them much since then.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Your son might like Project Reality Mod for BF2. All of the qualities you spoke about (cooperation, limit respawning, no AI, regretting mistakes) are part of it: http://www.realitymod.com/
Damnit, even Einstein hated band geeks like me. I'm so glad high school is behind me.
Abaddon: An Xbox 360 Indie game
People who are actually defending their home don't do a lot of joyful marching in ranks. They're busy sneaking about and shooting at the invaders guerrilla-fashion then running away.
You do however see a lot of that sort of marching from aggressive, invading military forces, as they attempt to intimidate the people they've just conquered.
As for "loving your country", no one has said it better then Thoreau:
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Weapons are the tools of fear;
a decent man will avoid them
except in the direst necessity
and, if compelled, will use them
only with the utmost restraint.
Peace is his highest value.
If the peace has been shattered,
how can he be content?
His enemies are not demons,
but human beings like himself.
He doesn't wish them personal harm.
Nor does he rejoice in victory.
How could he rejoice in victory
and delight in the slaughter of men?
He enters a battle gravely,
with sorrow and with great compassion,
as if he were attending a funeral.
--Lao Tzu
It is fascists who sing joyful songs as they march off to war. If a free man of any decency must kill to defend his community - and this hasn't applied in the U.S. since the Battle of Baltimore in 1814[*] - he does so with a heavy heart.
([*]Hawaii was not part of the U.S. at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack, and the islands are stolen property anyway. 9/11 was an act of mass murder, not a military attack by another nation that desires to invade or annex the U.S.)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Sir, since your S4 seems to have let you down, you can have some whitespace from my secret squirrel stash:
"
"
Feel free to use it to break up paragraphs, indent, whatever you need.
All the way!
So why, then, did the defense in the court-martail of Corporal Trent D. Thomas assert "Marines in combat don't challenge orders"? Do only officers get to question orders?
Why, indeed, did almost every member of the military march off to Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq with nary a whimper? Only a handful stood up and refused.
Protect it from whom? The Canadians? The Mexicans? Al Qaeda, while a bunch of criminals who are in dire need of being stopped, is no more a threat to my freedom of speech than is the Mafia or the Crips. (If they managed to pull a 9/11 every year, more Americans would still die by drowning than would be killed by terrorist attacks.)
The U.S. faces no significant threat of invasion; no foreign power is going to take us over and take away our freedoms. They don't have to; we're going a bang-up job of taking them away from ourselves.
The only guys I see who pose a threat to my freedom of speech are the ones you work for: the federal government.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgement or of the moral sense
...Thank God for this, in America's military our moral judgment is not only encouraged, it is celebrated. I can think of a great many instances where I could have shot, but didn't... Probably should have shot, but didn't... And at every turn, I received a pat on the back for my judgment.
I do detest those who pick a fight, then hide in the bushes and buildings, unwilling to fight the fight they brought upon themselves like men. Not stupid men (i.e., the British standing in a tight block, waiting to be shot), mind you, but men.
Hero? Martyr? I would never claim the title... I'm perfectly satisfied with the unexpected 'thank you' I get from time to time when someone notices my tattoo of the Eagle, Globe, and Anchor.
The bottom line is, if there were no organized military in America, you'd be climbing a tree or hiding in a bush every few months trying to defend the country you love when Iran or Russia decides to take a swim over here to rape our wives. That's a fact.
The correct response was not to do it without question but to respond with "As you where sir!"
According to the following link, that is a myth:
http://level2.cap.gov/index.cfm?nodeID=5455
Really? Then why is it that almost every member of America's military marched off to Bush's illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq without so much as a whimper? Why is it that the the defense in the court-martial of Corporal Trent D. Thomas asserted that "Marines in combat don't challenge orders"?
Hmm. So you detest those who participated in the criminal invasion of Iraq, then hid in the Green Zone or in FOBs, unwilling to fight the fight with insurgents that they provoked? Wow. Most anti-war protesters don't go that far; we realize that those soldiers were duped victims too, guilty perhaps of poor judgment, but certainly not to be detested. We hope they get to stay safe in the bushes and buildings, rather than being shot at by Iraqis defending their homeland against invaders.
Why do you think Iran and Russia have such a beef with us, rather than with, say, Switzerland?
Number of times Russian or Iranian troops have invaded the U.S. or toppled its government: 0.
Number of times U.S. troops have invaded Russia: once: 13,000 American troops during the Russian Civil War.
Number of times U.S. covert operatives backed an anti-democratic military coup in Iran: once, in 1953.
These are the sorts of actions carried out by those who march in joyful, singing ranks, following unquestioningly the orders of their "superiors".
I am all for the right to self-defense, individual and collective. And certainly some sort of organization is needed for that. But when that takes the form of a large standing army, instead of a "well-regulated militia", it's a constant temptation to use it for aggressive means.
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail; when all you have is a military-industrial complex, everything looks like a reason to bomb or invade someone.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Really? Then why is it that almost every member of America's military marched off to Bush's illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq without so much as a whimper?
...because almost every member of America's military believes in the cause... The ones that didn't exercised their rights as a "conscientious objector" and didn't go. That's what democracy is all about. You have every right to walk all over it and call every preemptive strike an 'illegal action' if you so choose. Personally, if you make a motion like you're going to hit me, you better believe I'm going to tie your ass in a knot whether or not you connected with your first punch.
I remain completely mystified as to how a war that was approved by the VAST majority of not only the government, but the American people (73%, if I remember correctly) can be considered 'illegal'. If someone wants to investigate whether or not the president knew the intel was inaccurate, please, knock yourself out and get back to us. Don't forget the proof, though.
Why is it that the the defense in the court-martial of Corporal Trent D. Thomas asserted that "Marines in combat don't challenge orders"?
Well, I don't know why the defense made that statement. Whoever it was certainly lied directly to the judge's face. I can state that as an absolute fact, having been personally involved in said disobedience.
Hmm. So you detest those who participated in the criminal invasion of Iraq, then hid in the Green Zone or in FOBs, unwilling to fight the fight with insurgents that they provoked?
Well, no... I more detest those who participated in the criminal slaughter of over 3000 innocent civilians, and all those who supported their efforts, whether openly or covertly, then hid in the mountains of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, and Syria, and used innocent civilians as human shields, lopped off the heads of innocent reporters, and placed IEDs in easy reach of children playing in fields. (This particular example I know all too well... I gave blood to a 5 year-old girl who lost a hand while playing with an IED planted by an Iraqi terrorist, whom we later captured and did NOT kill.) - At any rate, the provocation is obvious to all but the most severely disabled of minds.
Why do you think Iran and Russia have such a beef with us, rather than with, say, Switzerland?
...because we are more powerful than them. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. These are evil men with evil motives, whose people live in poverty MUCH greater than America's, and their power-hungry governments are entirely to blame. I'm not saying we're not headed down the same path, but life is full of choices between the lesser of two evils. At least America has a few checks and balances in place... At the moment, America is absolutely the best place on Earth to be, but this can always change tomorrow. (It may change as soon as November 4th if we end up choosing to switch over to socialism.)
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail; when all you have is a military-industrial complex, everything looks like a reason to bomb or invade someone.
...and when all you have is the perceptions of a reporter from half a world away, everything looks like a human rights violation. When it's right there in your face every single day for nearly 2 years of your life, you begin to think much more clearly about the whole thing.
And it's poseurs who spout off random shit when they have no clue what they're talking about.
If a free man of any decency must kill to defend his community
You're even a poseur when it comes to isolationism. After all, even the early militia was instituted to defend the entire nation, not simply communities.
Community: A body of people having common rights, privileges, or interests, or living in the same place under the same lawsand regulations; Society at large; a commonwealth or state; a body politic; the public, or people in general; a group of people living in a particular local area; a group of people having ethnic or cultural or religious characteristics in common; a group of nations having common interests.
A "community" can be anything from my neighborhood ("community improvement association") to a group of nations ("European community").
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I am a member of no political party, and never have been. If you are limited to thinking in terms of political parties, you might perhaps think of me as a bastard child of a Green and a Libertarian, lost in the forest and raised by wolves. I'm a libertarian socialist, a Zenarchist on good days. I'm a vegan and peace activist who owns guns and teaches people unarmed combat skills. I decline to be put in a box.
So is that because almost every member of America's military was woefully ignorant before they joined and their training and indoctrination did not correct that, or because almost every member of America's military was subject to such strong mental conditioning during their training and indoctrination that their ability to thing clearly was clouded?
Because the U.S. is signatory to treaties outlawing wars of aggression. Among these is the U.N. charter: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal." -- Kofi Annan
Public approval does not make for legality - that's the basis of constitutional government. It's disappointing - nay, frightening - that this is apparently not understood by everyone in the military.
If you're suggesting that there was any evidence that Iraq was somehow going to "hit" us, you've lost touch with reality so much that further discussion is pointless.
I'm sorry, is there a socialist candidate running from a major party? Most of the media attention has been about the one from the party of the center of the right wing, and the one from the right wing of the center. Who is this socialist candidate?
Well, Rome was the best place to be 2,000 years ago. (At least, in the Western world; China under the Han Dynasty was also an amazing culture.) Does that justify the oppression and slavery that existed in the Roman Empire?
But the claim that "America is absolutely the best place on Earth to be" has to rest on some assumptions about "best place". By many measures, the U.S. lags other nations: our literacy rate is 18th in the world, our infant mortality rate is almost twice that of Japan, our life expectancy ranks 29th. On the Human Development Index, we're 12th. On the Press Freedom Index, we're at a shameful 48th place.
I find it the best place to be because it's my home. America is the best nation to me, in the same way that Baltimore is the best city. That doesn't mean that I find the life of a New Yorker worth less than the life of a Baltimorean, or the life of an I
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Wow... I'm sorry, but I really don't feel like continuing this conversation after reading all that... You're in so deep, you can't be brought back. Have fun with those conspiracy theories and living in fear, man. You don't appreciate what I did for you, that's fine, you don't have to. You're part of the reason I did what I did, and that's what makes America an...interesting...place to live.
Not that this is likely to reach you, but I don't live in fear. And the Bush administration's plot to invade Iraq by at best heavily spinning and at worst outright manufacturing evidence is not a conspiracy theory, it's a matter of public record.
I appreciate your desire to serve, and your courage in going into danger to do so. Unfortunately, it's your judgment that lacked. In your desire to "help" me, you participated in actions that caused the deaths of over 655,000 people, wasted hundreds of billions of dollars, and left the U.S. less safe and less free.
So, you know, don't do me any more favors...
If, maybe, somehow, a bit of this reaches you, makes you uncomfortable, starts you thinking, gets you to question whether you were misled; then you might want to check out Iraq Veterans Against the War.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Or the people in the world that are threatened by terrorism, religious extremeism, murderous dictatorships, etc.
I don't think I've ever heard a justification of our current wars quite like yours before. Thank you for the insight.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
Not even close. I said to defend one's community. Wars of aggression are right out.
My "community" includes those threatened by bullying, homophobia, and bigotry. I will come to their aid and defense, with force if necessary. But that does not mean I'm justified in going out and shooting or beating people who have been guilty of bullying in the past, or who express homophobic or racist attitudes, or even who make threatening remarks or who express support for those who make violent attacks.
And if I take defensive action, I must use the minimal force needed to stop an attacker, and I must not harm innocent bystanders. Again, you will note neither of these conditions to be found in our current illegal and immoral wars of aggression.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
So why, then, did the defense in the court-martail of Corporal Trent D. Thomas assert "Marines in combat don't challenge orders"?
If you had actually read the article, you'd notice that the case was about premeditated kidnapping and murder. That, in my humble opinion (NOT the opinion of the rest of the Navy, mind you), is the mark of an idiotic NCO that should never have made it out of boot camp. That is a good article to use as "evidence" if you are into judging an entire organization based on the actions of two individuals.
Protect it from whom? The Canadians? The Mexicans? Al Qaeda...
Nobody would have thought Russia would invade Georgia, either.
I don't disagree with you that nobody is going to try to invade the U.S. now, but what about 20 years down the road? What happens if the economy does not recover, and decides they've had enough of America?
If the federal government is such a bad thing, have you considered moving out of the country? That's one of the beautiful things about this country- you can pack your stuff up and leave if you don't like it.
I'd love to hear more of your views. Shoot me an email or something.
If that was aimed at me, HAL, I was referring more to my lack of a right to protest.
Learn to read, dickwad.
Was it a response to your post? No. So is it me that needs to learn to read? Take your time before climbing up onto that high horse of yours.
HAL.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
So, what gives you more right to define "community" for our nation than our elected officials? (Which you've done, in an inconsistent and somewhat hypocritical way.)
Also, I'd like to point out that:
You've claimed that physical violence can be justified by name-calling, if the "names" fall in certain categories.
You've also (perhaps out of ignorance) claimed that weekly shooting attacks by a national military don't justify military response.
Careful reading of your posts will help you understand your first implication. A little recent history (say 1990 - 2003) will help clear your second.
-End of Line-
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
The community that our national elected officials should be concerned with, is exactly the community of our nation. That's their job.
If individual citizens want to define their community as including people in other nations, and go join up with fighting forces in those other nations, fine. (Provided of course that said forces are not at war with the U.S.) You want to include Israel in your community and go join the Israeli Army and fight Palestinian "terroists" - or include Palestinians in your community and join the Palestinian resistance to fight Israeli "terrorists", go ahead.
But you sure shouldn't let elected officials, working for the benefit of the rich and powerful, define for you the community you're willing to take up arms to defend.
I have never claimed this, and I challenge you to either cite where I have or to retract this insult. I stand squarely behind the freedom of speech.
What national military is engaging in weekly shooting attacks upon the United States? I'd have thought it would be all over the news if Canadians were lobbing shells over the border, or if the Mexican army were preparing to take back Texas, or even if the Russian Navy were buzzing about Alaska taking potshots at Sarah Palin's National Guard troops. So, pray, remedy my ignorance.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Right there, you are kinda saying you're willing to use force to stop name-calling.
Also:
You seriously hadn't heard of the repeated attacks on US planes between 1990 and 2003?
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
No, I'm not "kinda" saying anything of the kind. And I think you even know that, with your sudden disclaimer of "kinda".
First, I said "those threatened" - those suffering only name calling are not being threatened. Second, I offered "aid and defense, with force if necessary" - the use of defensive force is necessary only - indeed, can only exit - if aggressive force is present.
Do you mean the planes imposing the illegal "no fly" zones in Iraq?
If the planes had legal and ethical justification for being there, then it would have been legally and ethically appropriate to respond to attacks on them. But when you're an armed trespasser, you give up a lot of your self-defense rights - even if you're trespassing with vigilantism in mind rather than garden-variety crime.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Now I'm REALLY confused. Because before it sounded like you DIDN'T support the war in Iraq, and now here you are supporting doing battle against Saddam Hussein.
I give up.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
I see that your reading comprehension skills need work. Let me see if I can resolve your confusion:
I supported Operation Desert Shield. It was a legitimate defensive use of force.
I did not support Operation Desert Storm. While conducted with legal authorization, it was an aggressive intervention in a border dispute in an unstable region, and American support for it was whipped up via outright fabrication. It was an attempt to put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it, and caused much more trouble than it solved. We would have been wise to hold the defensive cordon and keep the sanctions on, while working toward a comprehensive peace plan to undo the damage done by decades of British, American, and Russian meddling in the region (and working toward renewable energy for the whole world so no one had such a strong motivation to meddle).
And I certainly don't support the current illegal, immoral, and stupid invasion of Iraq, which can in no way pretend to be a defensive use of force. In 2003, Iraq was not a threat to any other nation. If you want to claim that the invasion was undertaken to defend the people of Iraq, you have to explain away that 1) this was never the motivation discussed at the time, and 2) over 600,000 of them have killed due to the invasion. This is sort of like going in with guns blazing with the excuse of "saving" your neighbor from her abusive husband and shooting the whole family in the process. (And it looks kind of funny when you stand to directly benefit from the husband's death...)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood